Asbestos Cases A–Z: L

193 decisions whose name begins with L.

• Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2023). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that the Department of Workers' Claims, not the Board of Claims, has jurisdiction over Roger Hall's workers' compensation claim against the Letcher County Board of Education, so Hall prevailed.
• Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2022). The court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board on jurisdiction and on the timeliness of Hall's medical bills, but reversed on interest and remanded for the 6% rate, so Hall prevailed on most points and Letcher County Board of Education prevailed on interest.
• Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2019). The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, which had upheld the Workers' Compensation Board's reversal of the ALJ's finding that Hall's claim was untimely, so Hall (claimant) won against the Letcher County Board of Education, and the case was remanded to the ALJ.
• Letcher County Board OF Education v. Hall (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2018). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's reversal of the ALJ, so Roger Hall's mesothelioma claim was not time-barred and the Letcher County Board of Education lost.
• Letteney's (dependent's) Case (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1999). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the reviewing board's decision, which favored Hercules and the Workers' Compensation Trust Fund and went against the claimant widow, holding that her husband's self-employment wages in Florida could not be used to set the compensation rate.
• Levin v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting plaintiff Mary Sharon Levin's motion to remand her claims against Johnson & Johnson to Multnomah County Circuit Court on equitable grounds, rejecting J&J's bankruptcy-based removal.
• Levin v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, 2019). The court corrected a clerk's error by remanding the claims against all non-J&J defendants to Multnomah County Circuit Court and denied those defendants' motions to dismiss as moot; the claims against J&J stayed in federal court.
• Lewis v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2012). The district court denied plaintiff Elizabeth Lewis's motion to remand to New Jersey state court, ruling that GE's federal officer removal defense gave it federal question jurisdiction over the whole case, so GE, Bell and MetLife stayed in federal court.
• Lewis v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court granted Bayer's unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed Avondale's third-party complaint against Bayer with prejudice, because the plaintiffs' 2001 release covered the current asbestos lung cancer claims, while preserving Avondale's right to seek a virile share credit at trial.
• Lewis v. Washington State Department OF Labor and Industries (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 2023). The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court's order upholding the Board's denial of permanent surviving spouse benefits to Diane Lewis, so the Department of Labor and Industries prevailed.
• Liberman v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court granted Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross claims against it, because plaintiffs did not show Mr. Liberman was exposed to UCC's asbestos; the case continued against the other defendants.
• Lilley v. Board OF Sup'rs OF State Univ. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 1999). The court affirmed the trial court's awards of $30,000 and $15,000 in general damages to firefighters against the LSU Board of Supervisors, and reversed the $12,000 per plaintiff medical monitoring awards.
• Lilley v. Johns-Manville Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1991). The Superior Court affirmed the judgment against Fibreboard Corporation for one-eighth of the Lilleys' verdict plus delay damages, and also rejected the Lilleys' cross-appeal over the directed verdict on Fibreboard's cross-claims against Garlock and Eagle-Picher.
• Linder v. AW Chesterton Co. (Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District, 2020). The appellate court denied GIW's motion to dismiss or stay the appeal and affirmed the circuit court's protective order barring the Linder plaintiffs from using GIW's Bills of Material outside the litigation without consent or leave of court.
• Lindsay v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Leviton Manufacturing Co.'s motion for summary judgment, finding material fact issues on whether plaintiff William Lindsay was exposed to asbestos from Leviton light fixtures and outlets, so the plaintiffs' case against Leviton goes to a jury.
• Lindsay v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied defendant Kohler Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs William and Patricia Lindsay's claims against Kohler continue.
• Lindsay v. Ports America Gulfport, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2021). The appeals court granted the heirs' writ application, vacated the order compelling DNA testing of the heirs and the intervenors, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, so the heirs prevailed over the intervenors on this point.
• Lindsey v. Dow Chemical Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2021). The court held that Johnson & Johnson and Johnson Consumer properly removed the case on diversity grounds, dismissed the other defendants as fraudulently joined, and denied plaintiff Lindsey's motions for leave to amend, to remand, and for a hearing.
• Lindstrom v. AC Product Liability Trust (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 2005). The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Ingersoll Rand, Coffin Turbo Pump, Garlock Sealing, Henry Vogt and Goulds Pumps, and affirmed the bench-trial verdict for John Crane, so the estate of Rolf Lindstrom lost against all six defendants.
• Lindstrom v. AC Products Liability Trust (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2003). The district court granted summary judgment to Westinghouse, Foster Wheeler, Aurora Pump, Gulf Engineering, Ingersoll Rand, Walworth, Crosby Valve, General Electric, Warren Pumps, Crane, A.W. Chesterton and Coffin Turbo Pump, and dismissed Lindstrom's claims against them with prejudice.
• Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1995). The Court of Appeal reversed the nonsuit for Plant Insulation as to Lineaweaver and remanded for retrial, but affirmed the nonsuit against King and Ward for insufficient evidence of exposure to Plant-supplied Pabco.
• Lineberger v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2017). The court denied Siemens Corporation's motion to certify its earlier order denying dismissal for interlocutory appeal, so the plaintiffs (the Linebergers) prevailed on this motion.
• Lineberger v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2017). The magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny Siemens' motion to dismiss, and its alternative motion for a more definite statement, in the Lineberger mesothelioma suit, which favors the plaintiffs.
• Lineberger v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2017). A magistrate judge recommended that the District Court deny RSCC Wire and Cable LLC's Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so the Linebergers' claims against RSCC would go forward, and also granted RSCC an extension of time nunc pro tunc.
• Linnell, Choate & Webber v. Heyde (U.S. District Court, District of Maine, 1971). The court granted the law firm's motion for summary judgment, denied the Deputy Commissioner's, and set aside the $1,450 attorneys' fee award in a widow's death-benefit case as arbitrary and an abuse of discretion, directing an amended award of at least $2,500 plus $675.93 in disbursements.
• Linster v. Allied Signal, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2011). The Superior Court vacated the judgment, reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Crane Company, and remanded for further proceedings, so the Linsters (plaintiffs) won and Crane Company lost.
• Lipson v. ON Marine Services Co. LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2014). The district court denied plaintiff Joanne Lipson's motion for reconsideration of its order excluding expert testimony based on the Washbourne Report, so defendant On Marine Services prevailed on the motion.
• Lipson v. ON Marine Services Company, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2013). The court denied the defendants' (ON Marine and Lone Star) motions in limine to exclude or limit the testimony of plaintiffs' experts Dr. Longo, Dr. Brodkin and Ms. Raterman, and admitted Dr. Longo's Tyndall-lighting video, without a Daubert hearing.
• Lishman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2022). The court granted Alfa Laval's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling that it had not waived the defense, so the plaintiffs' claims against Alfa Laval were dismissed.
• Little v. Budd Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 2018). The court denied Budd's motion for summary judgment on federal preemption of the state-law claims, granted it on the alternative negligence per se claim, and granted plaintiff's motion in part and denied it in part. It also struck a paragraph of Budd's president's declaration.
• Little v. Budd Company (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 2019). The district court denied both the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and expenses under Rule 37(c)(2) and The Budd Company's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, leaving the jury verdict for the plaintiff in place.
• Little v. Budd Company (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 2018). The court denied Budd Company's motion to exclude Dr. Brody, granted in part and denied in part its motion to exclude Dr. Castleman (barring testimony about what Budd knew), and denied the motion on Dr. Frank as moot.
• Little v. Budd Company (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 2018). The court denied The Budd Company's motion to amend and certify its two earlier orders on Federal Safety Appliance Act preemption for interlocutory appeal, so plaintiff Nancy Little prevailed on the motion.
• Little v. the Budd Company (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 2018). The district court overruled The Budd Company's objection and affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying its motion to add a ninth expert witness and reopen discovery, so plaintiff Nancy Little prevailed on this motion.
• Little v. the Budd Company (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 2018). The court denied The Budd Company's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, so plaintiff Nancy Little's state law claims and her alternative negligence per se claim proceed.
• Little v. the Budd Company, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 2020). The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Nancy Little against The Budd Company, holding Budd waived its Locomotive Inspection Act preemption theory and that the Safety Appliance Act does not preempt her state tort claims.
• Lively EX rel. Lively v. Union Carbide Corporation (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2013). The Tennessee Supreme Court (through its Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel) affirmed the trial court: the widow, Armethia Lively, recovered only funeral expenses from Union Carbide because the 1982 date of injury capped her benefits below her husband's $90,000 settlement.
• Livernois v. National Ship and Shipbuilding Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2018). The court granted plaintiff William Livernois's motion to voluntarily dismiss his action against NASSCO without prejudice, rejecting NASSCO's forum-shopping objection because NASSCO showed no cognizable prejudice.
• Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. v. Rossello (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2018). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment for Patrick Rossello against Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., finding no error in the denial of summary judgment, the exclusion of Donald Hopkins as a trial witness, or the denial of JNOV and new trial motions.
• Llt Management LLC v. Emory (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2025). The court granted the doctors' motion to dismiss LLT Management's fraud claim (time-barred) and Lanham Act false advertising claim (failure to state a claim), but denied it as to the trade libel/product disparagement claim, which goes forward.
• Locke v. Johns-Manville (Virginia Supreme Court, 1981). The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the trial court's summary judgments for Johns-Manville and the other defendants, holding the mesothelioma suit was not time-barred, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc. (Washington Supreme Court, 1987). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the trial court, leaving in place the $183,372 jury verdict for Albert Lockwood against Raymark Industries.
• Logan v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2014). The court granted The William Powell Company's motion for summary judgment against the estate and wife of Ralph Logan because the plaintiffs did not show he was actually exposed to asbestos from a Powell valve.
• Logan v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2014). The court granted summary judgment to Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, ruling against the plaintiffs, the Logan estate and Lois Logan, for lack of evidence of exposure to a Foster Wheeler asbestos product or of a duty to warn.
• Logan v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2014). The court denied summary judgment to Air Products (as successor to Catalytic), Crane Company and Ingersoll-Rand, and granted Air Products' separate motion on claims against it individually, dismissing those claims with prejudice.
• Logan v. AP Miller-Maersk, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Cemex's motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross-claims against it, because the missing agreements left questions of fact and plaintiffs raised a triable issue of de facto merger with Seas Shipping.
• Logan v. AP Moller-Maersk, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied defendant Blackmer Pump Company's motion for summary judgment, finding Blackmer failed to make a prima facie showing, so plaintiffs John and Gail Logan's claims against it continued.
• Logan v. AP Moller-Maersk, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Union Carbide's cross-motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so plaintiffs John and Gail Logan prevailed, and denied Georgia Pacific's motion as moot because plaintiffs had settled with it.
• Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1986). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the defendants: directed verdicts for Raymark, Celotex and Pittsburgh Corning, a jury verdict for the other four defendants, and the challenged evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, against plaintiff Lohrmann.
• Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2000). The Superior Court affirmed the denial of judgment notwithstanding the verdict to Owens-Corning and Garlock on Phase I, and affirmed the grant of a new Phase II trial on Garlock's liability, so the Lonascos and the Collinses prevailed.