Asbestos Cases A–Z: H

245 decisions whose name begins with H.

• Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 1981). The district court granted Forty-Eight Insulations' motions for discovery and leave to file cross-actions on a market share theory, denied the sixteen defendants' motion to reconsider the collateral estoppel order (amending it slightly), and certified the collateral estoppel question for interlocutory appeal.
• Hargrave v. Fibreboard Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1983). In Fults, the Fifth Circuit vacated summary judgment and ordered Nicolet's third-party complaint against Turner & Newall dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; in Hargrave, it affirmed summary judgment for Turner & Newall against Nicolet.
• Harig v. Johns-Manville Products (Maryland Court of Appeals, 1978). The Maryland Court of Appeals answered certified questions from the federal district court, holding that Mrs. Harig's negligence and strict liability claims accrued on discovery of her latent disease, a ruling that favored her over Johns-Manville.
• Harris v. AC & S, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, 1995). The court granted summary judgment to Pittsburgh Corning, Owens-Corning, Anchor Packing and Garlock, and in part to Georgia-Pacific (for Bestwall). It denied it to John Crane, to Georgia-Pacific on its joint compound, and initially to A.W. Chesterton. It later reconsidered, granted Chesterton summary judgment, and directed final judgment for all defendants.
• Harris v. AC & S., Inc. (Indiana Supreme Court, 2003). The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals opinion and the trial court's summary judgment for the asbestos defendants, and remanded for the trial court to examine whether any plaintiff falls within the limited exception to the ten-year statute of repose.
• Harris v. AC & S., Inc. (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2002). The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts' summary judgments for A.C. & S., NARCO, Mallinckrodt, Combustion Engineering, Kaiser, WTI, Rapid-American, Weil-McLain and W.R. Grace on statute-of-repose grounds and remanded, siding with the plaintiffs (Harris, Serna, Noppert and Gottschalk families).
• Harris v. Ajax Boiler, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2014). The court granted summary judgment to Crane Co., Cleaver-Brooks, Riley Power and Trane and dismissed them from the case, ruling against plaintiff Robin Harris.
• Harris v. Ajax Boiler, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2014). The court denied non-party Duke University Health System's motion for a protective order and for reconsideration, and ordered Duke to release the requested tissue blocks to the defendants' expert within ten days.
• Harris v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2019). The federal district court granted Michael and Elsie Harris's motion to remand, ruling that Ingersoll-Rand's removal notice was untimely, and sent the case back to Alameda County Superior Court.
• Harris v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2012). The district court denied CBS Corporation's motion to dismiss for improper venue or transfer to the District of Idaho, and denied its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, so the Harrises' suit continued.
• Harris v. Thomas Dee Engineering Co., Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment that had favored Thomas Dee Engineering and sent the case back, so Harris's wife and children may continue their claims against Thomas Dee.
• Harris v. Thomas Dee Engineering Co., Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Thomas Dee Engineering, holding the plaintiffs' expert declaration raised a triable issue on whether Thomas Dee's work exposed Michael Harris to asbestos.
• Harris v. Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment for Triple A Machine Shop, finding a triable issue on whether its ship repair work exposed Michael Harris to asbestos, and remanded for the trial court to address Triple A's alternative summary adjudication request; Harris's family won.
• Harrison v. Volkswagen Group OF America, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2016). The district court found no subject matter jurisdiction because the Missouri defendant J.P. Bushnell was not fraudulently joined, rejected Volkswagen's removal, and remanded the case to the St. Louis state court, a win for the plaintiffs.
• Harrow Industries LLC v. Nexus Corporation (U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois, 2018). The court granted Nexus Corporation's motion to dismiss Harrow Industries' contract complaint for failure to plausibly allege liability, but allowed Harrow limited discovery and leave to file an amended complaint.
• Hart v. Honeywell International (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2017). The court granted summary judgment to Genuine Parts and Pneumo Abex on all claims and to all defendants on the common law and failure-to-warn claims, but denied it to Honeywell and Ford on the brake design defect claim, so the plaintiffs' case continued against those two; Ford's sanctions motion was denied.
• Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Cynthia Hart (successor to Frank Hart), rejecting Keenan Properties' challenges to the medical-expense testimony and to the allocation of prior settlements to future wrongful death claims.
• Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc. (California Supreme Court, 2020). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment, which had overturned the plaintiffs' verdict against Keenan Properties, and remanded to the Court of Appeal to consider other unresolved contentions, so the Harts prevailed on the hearsay question.
• Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2018). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against Keenan Properties, holding the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a foreman's hearsay testimony about invoices, so the Harts lost their verdict of about $1.63 million.
• Hart v. Special Electric Company, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 5th Division, 2018). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Special Electric Company, Inc., holding that Hart's claims were time-barred under Wisconsin's two-year post-dissolution claims period.
• Hartfield v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2016). The court granted plaintiff James Hartfield's motion to remand to Missouri state court, finding Dow Chemical did not show the Missouri defendant J.P. Bushnell was fraudulently joined, and denied his request for attorneys' fees.
• Hartman v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District, 1994). The appellate court affirmed the Madison County judgment for the plaintiff (James Hartman's estate) against Pittsburgh Corning, including the punitive damages award, and rejected all of Pittsburgh Corning's claims of error.
• Hasenberg v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2014). The court denied the Hasenbergs' motion to remand, holding Crane Co.'s federal officer removal was proper, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice with an order to file an amended complaint naming each defendant in each count.
• Hasenberg v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2015). The district court denied the summary judgment motions of Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (successor to Buffalo Pump) and Warren Pumps LLC, so plaintiff William Hasenberg's claims against both proceed.
• Haskins v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina, 2017). The district court granted Air and Liquid Systems' and Crane's motions to exclude Dr. Bedrossian's specific-causation testimony in both cases, and denied the motions as to other experts because plaintiffs conceded they would offer no specific-causation opinion.
• Hassell v. Budd Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2019). The court granted summary judgment to Budd and Resco on claims based on arc chute insulation and on pipes originating in the locomotive (preempted by the LIA), denied it for pipes that did not originate in the locomotive because of a factual dispute, and found no Safety Appliance Act preemption, so the rest of Peggy Hassell's case goes back to the transferor court.
• Hatten v. Grobet USA (U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, 2020). The district court granted plaintiff Renee Hatten's motion to remand and sent the case back to Pima County Superior Court, because defendant Grobet did not show fraudulent joinder of the Arizona defendant Posner's or that the events occurred on a federal enclave.
• Hauser v. AW Chesterton Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court granted summary judgment to Treadwell and Courter, dismissing the claims and counter-claims against them, because plaintiffs showed no evidence that Mr. Hauser was exposed to asbestos products they supplied or installed; the case continues against the other defendants.
• Haver v. BNSF Railroad Co. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for BNSF entered after its demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, holding collateral estoppel did not bar the children's wrongful death claim; the Haver children won.
• Haver v. BNSF Railway Co. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 5th Division, 2014). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment sustaining BNSF Railway's demurrer without leave to amend, holding BNSF owed no duty to the decedent, so the survivors lost.
• Haver v. BNSF Railway Company (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for BNSF Railway against Lynne Haver (substituted by her son Josh Haver), holding she could not raise an unpleaded premises-liability theory in her opposition papers.
• Hayden v. 3M Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2017). The appeals court reversed the trial court's order quashing trial subpoenas served on the out-of-state corporate defendants, siding with plaintiffs Thomas and Jacqueline Hayden, and remanded for further consideration.
• Hayden v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted the Haydens' motion to remand and sent the case back to Orleans Parish state court, rejecting removal by Carrier Corporation and Wyeth Holdings (ACC).
• Hayden v. Cut-Zaven, Ltd. (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, 4th Division, 2020). The Court of Appeals reversed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of workers' compensation benefits, held that the hairdresser's job was the prevailing factor causing his mesothelioma, set his date of injury as June 26, 2014, and remanded for the remaining issues, with the claimant (his widow) prevailing over the employers Cut-Zaven and Papillion.
• Hayes v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 2021). The appeals court reversed the trial court's judgment that had granted SYSTRA Engineering's exception of lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the Hayes family's claims, and remanded for further proceedings, so the plaintiffs won on this issue.
• Hayes v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted summary judgment to Honeywell (successor to Bendix) and Ford, dismissing plaintiffs' claims against them with prejudice for lack of product identification evidence.
• Hayes v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted summary judgment for Honeywell (successor to Bendix) and Ford, dismissing with prejudice the Hayes sons' claims over their father's mesothelioma death.
• Hayes v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against Toyota with prejudice.
• Hayes v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2015). The district court granted CNH America's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against CNH with prejudice, because plaintiffs showed no evidence Mr. Hayes was exposed to asbestos from CNH's tractor gaskets.
• Hayes v. Asbestos, Corp., Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2014). The court granted Ford Motor Company's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding that the Louisiana Products Liability Act was the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy against Ford and dismissing the non-LPLA claims and the punitive damages claim against Ford.
• Hayes v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2021). The court affirmed the jury instructions and the exclusion of the Gordon Paper, but reversed and remanded for a new trial against Johnson & Johnson because admitting its corporate representative's personal-use testimony was reversible error; the defense verdict for Colgate stood.
• Hayes v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky, 2019). The district court granted the executrix's motion to remand her wrongful death talc case against Johnson & Johnson to Jefferson Circuit Court on equitable grounds and denied her request for attorney's fees and costs.
• Heard v. Conrad (Ohio Court of Appeals, 7th Appellate District, 2000). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Bureau of Workers' Compensation, the Industrial Commission and Eichleay Corporation, holding that George Heard's occupational disease claim was filed too late.
• Hearn v. Snapka (Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District, 2012). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for attorney Kathryn Snapka, ruling against former client Charlotte Hearn on her legal malpractice claim.
• Heaton v. Ford Motor Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2017). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for McCord Corporation, upholding the exclusion of the key witness's deposition testimony as a discovery sanction, so Heaton lost his claim against McCord.
• Hebert v. Anco Insulation, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 2002). The court affirmed dismissal of the claims against Hoyle, Gordon and Holder for lack of personal jurisdiction, but vacated the amended judgment against Dow on the merits and remanded for a determination of whether plaintiffs reserved their rights against Dow when they settled with the manufacturers.
• Hedden v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, 2015). The court granted summary judgment to Crown Cork & Seal, CBS, General Electric, Gardner Denver, Link-Belt and Riley Power, and denied it to Crane Co. and John Crane, Inc. on the maritime claims, so the Heddens' Navy-related claims against those two defendants go to trial while their non-maritime Louisville Gas & Electric claims were dismissed.
• Hefner v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District, 1995). The appellate court affirmed the Madison County trial court's denial of Owens-Corning Fiberglas's motion to reconsider transfer to Massac County for forum non conveniens, so the plaintiff kept his chosen forum, and remanded the case.
• Hegger v. Valley Farm Dairy Co. (Missouri Supreme Court, 2020). The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of enhanced mesothelioma benefits to Hegger's children, ruling for Valley Farm and its insurers and against the claimants.
• Hegger v. Valley Farm Dairy Company (Missouri Supreme Court, 2020). The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's denial of enhanced mesothelioma benefits to Vincent Hegger's children, ruling for the employer Valley Farm Dairy over the claimants.