Asbestos Cases A–Z: I

484 decisions whose name begins with I.

• In re GI Holdings, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, 2014). The bankruptcy court granted G-I Holdings' motion to dismiss the New York City Housing Authority's complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief with prejudice, holding the claims barred by the confirmed Plan.
• In re GI Holdings, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, 2005). The bankruptcy court denied debtor G-I Holdings' motion to liquidate asbestos claims through its medical matrix, denied the Committee's request for a mandatory § 524(g) trust, and ordered an aggregate estimation of present claims in phases.
• In re Global Sante FE Corporation (Texas Supreme Court, 2008). The Texas Supreme Court conditionally granted GlobalSantaFe's mandamus petition, directing the silica MDL pretrial court to vacate its order remanding John Lopez's Jones Act case, because Chapter 90's expert-report and MDL transfer provisions are not preempted, though the minimal-impairment requirement is.
• In re Grossman's Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2010). The en banc Third Circuit overruled Frenville, held that a bankruptcy "claim" arises on pre-petition exposure, reversed the District Court's ruling for the Van Brunts, and remanded for the lower courts to decide whether due process allowed discharge of their claims by JELD-WEN's predecessor's plan.
• In re Grossman's Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2008). The bankruptcy court ruled for Mary and Gordan Van Brunt and against JELD-WEN, holding that the Van Brunts' asbestos claims arose after the Grossman's plan's effective date and were not discharged or barred by the Confirmation Order.
• In re Grossman's, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2009). The district court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's ruling that the Van Bruntss' tort claims arose after the plan's Effective Date and were not discharged, but reversed as to the breach of warranty claims, which it held were discharged in favor of JELD-WEN; sanctions were denied.
• Sawyer v. Fibreboard Corp. (In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1991). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgments entered on jury verdicts for the plaintiffs in all four cases, rejecting the appeals of Fibreboard and Owens-Illinois.
• In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases (U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 1986). The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to strike the state of the art defense to their strict products liability claims (while still allowing such evidence on negligence), ruling against the defendant manufacturers, and held plaintiffs may use the consumer expectation test.
• Dias v. Fisher Controls Int'l (In re Hawaii State Asbestos Cases) (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2017). The appeals court affirmed the circuit court's order granting Shin Nippon's petition for a good faith settlement determination, rejecting objecting defendant Fisher Controls' challenges.
• In re Imerys Talc America, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, 2021). The court granted Arnold & Itkin's motion to disregard Trammel's changed votes, granted Williams Hart's Rule 3018 motion to change its votes to accept, denied Bevan & Associates' Rule 3018 motion and treated its master ballot as withdrawn, and denied J&J's motion to designate votes (moot as to Trammel and Bevan).
• In re Imerys Talc America, Inc. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Oklahoma, 2019). The bankruptcy court granted Sara Van Horn's motion to remand her wrongful death suit against Johnson & Johnson to Oklahoma County District Court, finding J & J had not shown 'related to' jurisdiction based on the Imerys bankruptcy.
• In re Imerys Talc America, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2019). The district court denied Johnson & Johnson's emergency motion for provisional transfer of about 2,400 talc cancer cases and its motion for immediate ex parte relief, ruling for the tort claimants' committee and the plaintiffs.
• In re Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 2016). The bankruptcy court granted Graphic Packaging International's motion and enjoined Lynda Berry's Louisiana state-court asbestos suit against Graphic as successor to MFP, ruling that her only recourse is a claim to the Manville Trust.
• In re Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 1989). The bankruptcy court permanently enjoined the claimants (Billiot, Molette, Taylor and Gruber) from pursuing their suits outside the Manville Plan's Claims Resolution Procedures, in favor of the Manville debtors and Trust; it made no contempt finding or sanctions because the claimants agreed to dismiss.
• In re Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 1984). The bankruptcy court granted Keene Corp.'s motion to appoint a legal representative for future asbestos claimants in the Manville reorganization, holding that those claimants are parties in interest, and set a later hearing on the representative's form and function.
• In re Johns-Manville Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2022). The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment upholding the bankruptcy court's injunction, so Graphic Packaging won and the Berry estate lost its bid to continue claims against Graphic in Louisiana state court.
• In re Johns-Manville Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2020). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order enjoining Lydia Berry's asbestos claims against Graphic Packaging, ruling for Graphic Packaging and against Berry.
• In re Johns-Manville Corporation (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 2015). The bankruptcy court granted Marsh USA's motion to enforce the 1986 Manville orders, holding that Salvador Parra Jr.'s conspiracy claims against Marsh were barred by the channeling injunction and denying him discovery.
• In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2020). The court granted in part and denied in part Johnson & Johnson's motions to exclude plaintiffs' experts Saed, Longo and the general-causation experts, and denied plaintiffs' motions to exclude defense experts Diette, Saenz and Neel.
• In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2021). The Special Master sustained most of Johnson & Johnson's attorney-client privilege and work-product claims but overruled them, in whole or in part, for about 32 sampled documents, which J&J must produce to the plaintiffs within seven days; decisions on four documents were deferred or held for a conference.
• Grispo v. Eagle-Picher Indus. (In re Joint E. & S. Dist. New York Asbestos Lit.) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1990). The Second Circuit affirmed the denial of Eagle-Picher's summary judgment motion on the military contractor defense, vacated the grant of summary judgment for the workers striking that defense, and remanded for further proceedings.
• In re Joint E. & SO. Dist. Asbestos Lit. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1993). The Second Circuit vacated the district court's preliminary injunction and limited-fund class certification and ordered Keene Corporation's complaint dismissed for lack of Article III subject matter jurisdiction, ruling for the asbestos claimants and against Keene.
• In re Joint E. & So. Dist. Asbestos Litigation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1992). The Second Circuit vacated the district and bankruptcy courts' judgment approving the class action settlement that restructured the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, ruling for the objecting health claimants and co-defendant manufacturers and against the Trust, class plaintiffs and Legal Representative. It affirmed the Rule 706 expert order and denied mandamus.
• Maiorana v. United States Mineral Prods. Co. (In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit.) (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1995). The Second Circuit reversed the district court's judgment as a matter of law for United States Mineral Products and reinstated the plaintiff's jury verdict, affirmed rulings against the contractor third-party defendants, and remanded so plaintiff could choose between the remittitur and a new trial.
• Maiorana v. United States Mineral Prods. Co. (In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit.) (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1993). The district court granted the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, setting aside the $4,510,000 jury verdict for plaintiff Arlene Maiorana because her causation proof for colon cancer was insufficient; it also ruled that, if reversed on appeal, the damages would be reduced and indemnity and new-trial motions denied.
• In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 1990). The district and bankruptcy courts held that they had authority to conditionally certify a mandatory Rule 23(b)(1)(B) limited-fund class of Manville Trust beneficiaries and to stay all pending and future state and federal proceedings against the Trust, with exceptions for trials already underway.
• Rummo v. The Celotex Corp. (In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit.) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 1989). The court held that the jury's alternative award of $775,000 for lost future earnings, based on pre-injury work-life expectancy, was proper against Celotex and upheld it for plaintiff Frank Rummo.
• Consorti v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (In Re Joint Eastern and Southern Dist. Asbestos) (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1998). The court granted Owens Corning's motion for a new trial unless Consorti accepts a reduced pain and suffering award of $5 million (a $7 million remittitur), and denied Owens Corning's request to cut the award to $3.5 million.
• In re Kansas City Southern Railway Company (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District, 2011). The court of appeals denied Kansas City Southern Railway's petition for writ of mandamus, leaving in place the trial court's order denying its motion to dismiss the employees' claims.
• In re Keene Corp. (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, 1994). The bankruptcy court granted Dorothy Richter's motion for relief from the automatic stay so the direct and contribution appeals of her New Jersey judgment against Keene could continue, with conditions; Keene lost.
• In re Kellogg-Brown & Root, Inc. (Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District, 2001). The court of appeals conditionally granted Kellogg-Brown & Root's mandamus petition, ruling the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to let the company withdraw or amend deemed admissions, so plaintiff Fambrough lost that ruling.
• In re Kensington Intern. Ltd. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2003). The Third Circuit granted mandamus in part, vacating Judge Wolin's stay of discovery on the recusal motions and directing him to allow expedited discovery and rule on them by January 31, 2004, without deciding whether he must be disqualified.
• In re Kensington International Limited (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2004). The Third Circuit granted the creditors' mandamus petitions and disqualified Judge Wolin from the Owens Corning, W.R. Grace and USG bankruptcies, over a dissent; it took no action on Armstrong or Federal-Mogul.
• Putt v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases) (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against Ford in part, upholding Ford's liability, the compensatory award and the punitive-damages eligibility finding, but ordering a new trial on apportionment of fault among Ford, other automakers and brake pad makers/suppliers and on the amount of punitive damages.
• Malek v. Chevron U.S.A. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases) (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Chevron U.S.A., Texaco and ConocoPhillips, holding they owed no duty of care to Farid Malek or his spouse, so the Maleks lost.
• Linsowe v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases) (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's orders granting the Linsowes a new trial and denying their motion for partial JNOV, finding the special verdict irreconcilably inconsistent, and remanded for a new trial; Hennessy's appeal failed and the Linsowes' cross-appeal was moot.
• Friedman v. American Biltrite (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases) (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2019). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered for American Biltrite after a directed verdict, holding plaintiffs Robert and Carole Friedman presented sufficient exposure and causation evidence, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Corley v. Bill Vann Co. (In re Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court overruled the plaintiffs' objections and accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation that the moving defendants win summary judgment on the pre-1979 Alabama one-year limitations bar. It also overruled the defendants' objections and denied summary judgment without prejudice on the one-disease/two-disease question, leaving that issue to the transferor court.
• Graver v. Allentown Cement Co. (In re Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court granted the Gravers' motion to remand to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, rejecting Allentown Cement Company's removal, and denied the Gravers' request for costs and sanctions.
• Breedlove v. CSX Transportation (In re Liability Litigation) (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court denied CSX Transportation's motion to exclude plaintiff's expert Dr. Arthur Frank, and granted in part CSX's motion for a protective order, allowing plaintiff to ask CSX's corporate representative about publicly litigated asbestos claims by non-parties.
• In re Lindemann v. Edison (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court granted Ohio Edison's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff, executor of George Lindemann's estate, offered insufficient evidence that Ohio Edison possessed the Bruce Mansfield plant during the exposure period.
• Turchen v. County Insulation Co. (In re Litigation) (Delaware Superior Court, 2011). The court imposed a $25,000 Rule 11 sanction on plaintiffs' counsel Thomas Crumplar for misstating authority in opposing County Insulation's summary judgment motion, and referred the matter, including the McCardle-Desco briefing, to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
• In re Ltl Management LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2024). The Third Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal of LTL Management's second Chapter 11 case for lack of financial distress, ruling against LTL and the Ad Hoc Committee and for the Talc Committee.
• In re Ltl Management LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, 2023). The bankruptcy court granted in part and denied in part the talc claimants' law firms' requests for substantial contribution administrative claims: it allowed claims for general discovery, first day matters and venue change work, and 25% of the claims for opposing the preliminary injunction and automatic stay extension, and denied fees for work done while the official committees' professionals were in place.
• In re Ltl Management LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2021). The bankruptcy court granted the Bankruptcy Administrator's and claimants' motions and transferred LTL Management's Chapter 11 case from the Western District of North Carolina to the District of New Jersey, over the debtor's objection.
• In re Ltl Management, LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, 2023). The bankruptcy court granted the motions of talc claimants, the Official Committee of Talc Claimants, the U.S. Trustee and others and dismissed LTL Management's second chapter 11 case as a bad-faith filing, because LTL did not show imminent financial distress; the debtor and the supporting law firms lost.
• In re Ltl Management, LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, 2023). The bankruptcy court granted LTL Management's motion in part and denied it in part, replacing the temporary restraining order with a limited preliminary injunction that bars trials against the listed non-debtor Protected Parties through June 15, 2023, with the multi-district litigation restraints to be revisited on May 22, 2023.
• In re Ltl Management, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2023). The Third Circuit reversed the Bankruptcy Court's denial of the talc claimants' motions to dismiss and remanded with instructions to dismiss LTL Management's Chapter 11 petition, so the talc claimants won and LTL and J&J lost.
• In re Ltl Management, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2023). The Third Circuit reversed the Bankruptcy Court's order denying the talc claimants' motions to dismiss and remanded with instructions to dismiss LTL Management's Chapter 11 petition, ruling for the talc claimants and against LTL and J&J.
• In re Ltl Management, LLC (U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey, 2022). The bankruptcy court granted LTL Management's motion and extended the automatic stay, or alternatively a § 105(a) preliminary injunction, to the New Mexico and Mississippi consumer protection actions against J&J and related nondebtors, over the States' objections, subject to review at a later hearing.