Asbestos Cases A–Z: J

95 decisions whose name begins with J.

• Jack v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The court approved the parties' stipulation and extended defendant M.W. Custom Papers' expert disclosure deadline for Dr. Godwin from April 18, 2018 to May 2, 2018.
• Jack v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2017). The district court granted the defendants' emergency motion to preserve evidence and ordered that Patrick Jack's remains be made available for an autopsy, over his widow Leslie Jack's objection, with the parties to confer on the details.
• Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The court granted Ford's motion to exclude Charles Cushing's testimony on Mr. Jack's automotive asbestos exposure, and denied the defendants' other motions to exclude the plaintiffs' experts (Fitzgerald, Gordon, Brodkin, Brody, Castleman, Longo), so the plaintiffs largely prevailed.
• Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The district court denied the Jack plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and stay, leaving in place its earlier summary judgment for Union Pacific Railroad on both the take-home and bystander exposure claims.
• Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2018). The court granted Union Pacific's summary judgment motion and granted in part and denied in part the motions of Ford and Borg-Warner, leaving Plaintiffs' exposure claims for removal of Borg-Warner clutches and for several Ford brake exposures for trial. It also granted Plaintiffs summary judgment on some defense claims, such as superseding cause, the sophisticated purchaser defense and, against Borg-Warner, failure to mitigate, and denied it on others.
• Jack v. Dco, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2021). The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Union Pacific Railroad and judgment as a matter of law for Ford and DCo, so the Jacks lost on all claims.
• Jack v. Dco, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2019). The district court granted DCo's and Ford's renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs' remaining post-sale failure-to-warn negligence theory and directed entry of judgment for the defendants.
• Jackson v. 84 Lumber Co. (New York Supreme Court, Onondaga, 2016). The trial court granted some and denied or reserved most of the defendants' (Union Carbide, Crane, Domco, Fairbanks) motions in limine, allowing plaintiff's state-of-the-art and specific-causation expert testimony and denying a Frye hearing at this stage.
• Jackson v. AC Product Liability Trust (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2009). The court denied Farrell Lines' motion for judgment as a matter of law but granted its motion for a new trial, setting aside the $8 million verdict for plaintiff Dorothy Jackson.
• Jackson v. Anchor Packing Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 1993). The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for all defendants (Owens-Corning, Owens-Illinois, Fibreboard, Keene, Anchor, Chesterton, Garlock, John Crane, Rexnord and Georgia Talc) against the ten Mohawk tire plant workers, because the workers lacked sufficient proof that a particular defendant's products caused their injuries.
• Jackson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court found genuine disputes of fact on exposure and causation, so Hopeman Brothers and Liberty Mutual (as insurer of Wayne Manufacturing) did not obtain summary judgment against plaintiff Patricia Jackson's estate representative; the issues go to the trier of fact.
• Jackson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The district court granted Hopeman Brothers' motion for reconsideration, vacated its earlier order remanding the case to state court, and denied plaintiff Patricia Jackson's motion to strike Hopeman's exhibits, finding federal officer removal jurisdiction.
• Jackson v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The court granted Patricia Jackson's motion to remand and the Avondale Defendants' motion to withdraw their notice of removal, sending the case back to Orleans Parish Civil District Court because she had settled with the removing defendants.
• Jackson v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 2019). The court granted Colgate-Palmolive's Daubert motion excluding plaintiff's expert Dr. Gordon's product contamination and specific causation opinions, granted in part and denied in part Colgate's motion in limine on talc sample authenticity, and found plaintiff's motion in limine moot.
• Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1986). The en banc Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for plaintiff Jackson against Johns-Manville and Raybestos-Manhattan, including compensatory and punitive damages.
• Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1985). The en banc Fifth Circuit declined to create federal common law for asbestos cases, reinstated parts of the panel opinion, and certified the questions on punitive damages, mental anguish and probable future cancer damages to the Mississippi Supreme Court, leaving the Jackson judgment against Johns-Manville and Raybestos-Manhattan unresolved pending that answer.
• Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1984). The Fifth Circuit affirmed that Jackson could sue Johns-Manville and Raybestos-Manhattan in strict liability and affirmed the handling of settlement credits. It reversed on admitting cancer-risk evidence, the Sumner Simpson letters and the punitive damages awards, and remanded for a new trial.
• Jacob v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that General Electric's federal officer removal was timely and that the court had subject matter jurisdiction.
• Jacobs v. Tapscott (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, 2007). The court granted the defendants' (attorney Tapscott and the law firm Baron & Budd) renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, set aside the jury's verdict for the plaintiffs, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
• Jacobs v. Tapscott (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, 2006). The court granted summary judgment for lawyer Tapscott and Baron & Budd on most of the family's claims, but denied it on two grounds of the breach of fiduciary duty claim and on fee forfeiture, and denied the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiffs' experts' supplemental opinions.
• Jadlowski v. Owens Corning (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 1995). The Appellate Division reversed the punitive damages award (as remitted to $2,500,000 from a $15,000,000 jury verdict) against Owens-Corning and remanded for a new trial on punitive damages, rejecting the plaintiff's cross-appeal from the remittitur.
• James v. 3M Corporation (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2008). The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of Ainsworth-Benning's motion to dismiss, holding Minnesota lacked personal jurisdiction over the South Dakota company, so Ainsworth won and Von St. James lost on that motion.
• Jaqua v. Canadian Nat. RR, Inc. (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2007). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of summary disposition and held that the release Jaqua signed barred his estate's FELA claim against Canadian National Railroad for his lung cancer, so the railroad won.
• Jarrett v. Consol. Rail Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2018). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for Consolidated Rail Corporation, holding that the worker's 2004 release barred his widow's FELA lung cancer claim.
• Jefferson County v. Farris (Texas Court of Appeals, 2018). The court of appeals reversed only the denial of the plea as to exemplary damages, rendering judgment dismissing that claim against Jefferson County, and otherwise affirmed the denial of the County's plea to the jurisdiction, so Mrs. Farris's claims proceed.
• Jefferson County v. Farris (Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2018). The court of appeals rendered judgment dismissing Ellarene Farris's wrongful-death and survival claims against Jefferson County, reversing the denial of the County's plea to the jurisdiction, because the County did not receive Tort Claims Act notice within six months of the last exposure; one justice dissented.
• Jefferson v. Cooper/T. Smith Corp. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2003). The appeals court reversed the summary judgment that had dismissed the Dock Board from the plaintiffs' suit and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for the plaintiffs against the Dock Board; rehearing was denied.
• Jeffries v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2008). The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the Metcalfe Circuit Court's judgment on a defense verdict for Georgia-Pacific, holding the trial court did not err in denying the Irwin estate's motion for a new trial.
• Jenkins v. Johns-Manville Products (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 1990). The Appellate Division reversed all five judgments of the judge of compensation and remanded: special adjustment benefits were wrongly allowed in Bognar and Kacsmar, properly allowed in Jackson, Jenkins and Shimanowitz but to be recalculated, and the 450-week waiting period was rejected, partly favoring the Commissioner of Labor and partly the claimants.
• Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1986). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class of asbestos personal injury plaintiffs on common issues, rejecting the thirteen defendant manufacturers' challenges.
• Jenkins v. T & N Plc (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 1996). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs Milton and Maxine Jenkins against T&N PLC, rejecting T&N's argument that a bulk supplier of raw asbestos fiber cannot be strictly liable; each side bore its own costs.
• Jensen v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2013). The court granted plaintiff Jensen's motion to remand to Pierce County Superior Court, finding Terex had not shown that non-diverse defendant Saberhagen was fraudulently joined, so diversity jurisdiction failed.
• Jessop v. Acf Industries, LLC (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2004). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order dismissing Janet Jessop's asbestos suit on forum non conveniens grounds, so the defendants won and she must re-file in Kansas.
• Jeter v. Ameron International Corporation (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2021). The court affirmed the trial court's rulings denying Turner's motion for partial summary judgment and granting the insurers' (FFIC and USF&G) motions, so Turner's third-party demand against them was dismissed.
• JH France Refractories v. Allstate (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1993). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the multiple-trigger theory and the finding of no insurer bad faith, but reversed the Superior Court's pro rata allocation of liability, so J.H. France may choose which triggered policy pays. It upheld PMA's pre-November 1973 products-hazard exclusion.
• JH France Refractories v. Allstate Insurance Co. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1990). The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the whole asbestos disease process from exposure to manifestation triggers coverage and its denial of attorney's fees to J.H. France, but reversed the trial court's allocation and held that insurers pay pro rata by time on the risk, with France bearing uninsured periods.
• JM Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Simmons Hanly Conroy, LLP (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2025). The court granted the motion of Simmons Hanly Conroy and its attorneys and staff to dismiss J-M Manufacturing's RICO counts for failure to plead a distinct enterprise, and dismissed the state law counts without prejudice.
• JM Manufacturing/formosa Plastics Corporation v. Workers'compensation Appeal Board (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, 2010). The Commonwealth Court reversed the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board's order, which had affirmed benefits for Claimant Barrett, and ruled for the Employer because Claimant did not establish asbestos exposure at the Franklin facility.
• Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to all fourteen defendants, such as Air & Liquid, Crosby, Flowserve and Warren Pumps, and rejecting plaintiff Johansen's claims because he did not respond to the motions or show his exposure to their products.
• Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting Ford Motor Company's summary judgment motion on the negligence, failure-to-warn and punitive damages claims, because Johansen's brake exposure was de minimis and Ford owed no duty to warn about third-party replacement parts; this favors Ford over plaintiff Johansen.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 2nd Division, 2013). Affirmed in part and reversed in part: horizontal exhaustion of Kemper's original primary limits is required, but triggered excess and umbrella policies are jointly and severally liable and John Crane need not prove all three Zurich triggers; remanded for a new exhaustion determination.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company (Illinois Appellate Court, 1st District, 2nd Division, 2013). The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's judgment, holding that John Crane must prove exhaustion of Kemper's original primary limits, that triggered umbrella and excess policies are jointly and severally liable, and that Crane need prove only one Zurich trigger; it rejected the insurers' cross-appeal and remanded.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Hardick (Virginia Supreme Court, 2012). On rehearing, the Supreme Court of Virginia reinstated the $2 million award to Hardick's estate for his pre-death pain and suffering against John Crane, Inc., while the $1.15 million loss of society award stayed vacated.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Hardick (Virginia Supreme Court, 2012). The Supreme Court of Virginia held that the jury could not award nonpecuniary damages ($2 million for pain and suffering and $1.15 million for loss of society) because Hardick was a seaman, vacated those awards in John Crane's favor, and otherwise affirmed the judgment for Mrs. Hardick, including the exclusion of John Crane's Navy expert.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Highsmith (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2004). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of $1,266,377 for Lois Highsmith and the estate of James Highsmith against John Crane, Inc., rejecting its challenges to the jury charges and the sufficiency of the evidence.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Jones (Virginia Supreme Court, 2007). The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the judgment for the Estate of Garland Jones against John Crane, Inc., rejecting all four of Crane's challenges.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Jones (Georgia Supreme Court, 2004). The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, upholding the $1,975,000 verdict for Laila Jones against John Crane, Inc. and the trial court's refusal to give a "substantial contributing factor" jury charge.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Jones (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2003). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the $1,975,000 jury verdict for Laila Jones against John Crane, Inc., upholding the jury charge, the evidence rulings and the denial of j.n.o.v. or a new trial.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Puller (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2006). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the jury verdicts for the Cichy plaintiffs against John Crane, Inc. and for the Puller plaintiffs against Garlock Sealing Technologies, but remanded so the statutory cap could be removed from the loss of consortium awards; the cap on the wrongful death awards was upheld.
• John Crane, Inc. v. Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, Apc (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2017). The court granted the law firm and its two name partners' motion to dismiss John Crane's RICO and fraud suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, without prejudice to refiling elsewhere, and denied John Crane's request for jurisdictional discovery.