Asbestos Cases A–Z: M

385 decisions whose name begins with M.

• MacCormack v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2017). The court granted Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (successor to Buffalo Pumps) summary judgment, holding the plaintiffs' claims against it were barred by collateral estoppel from an earlier Massachusetts judgment.
• MacCormack v. Ingersoll-Rand Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2018). The federal district court granted Ingersoll-Rand's motion for summary judgment, holding that the representatives of Berj Hovsepian were barred by collateral estoppel from pursuing their claims, because a Massachusetts court had already granted Ingersoll-Rand summary judgment against Hovsepian.
• MacCormack v. the Adel Wiggins Group (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2017). The court granted Warren Pumps' motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs' claims against it were barred by collateral estoppel because of a prior Massachusetts summary judgment in its favor.
• MacCormack v. the Adel Wiggins Group (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2017). The court granted defendant CBS Corporation's motion to reconsider and, on reconsideration, found it lacked general or specific personal jurisdiction over CBS in Missouri, a loss for the plaintiffs.
• MacCormack v. the Adel Wiggins Group (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, 2017). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion to dismiss, holding the plaintiffs' claims against Crane Co. barred by collateral estoppel because a Massachusetts court had already granted Crane Co. summary judgment on causation.
• Macek v. CBS Corporation (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the plaintiffs' claims against it go forward.
• Machnik v. Buffalo Pumps Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 2007). The court denied Machnik's motion to remand to state court, finding that General Electric had justified federal officer removal, so the case stayed in federal court.
• Macias v. Mine Safety Appliances Co. (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 2010). The Court of Appeals reversed the denial of summary judgment and remanded for entry of summary judgment for the respirator manufacturers (American Optical, Mine Safety Appliances, North Safety Products), defeating Macias's failure-to-warn claims.
• Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (Washington Supreme Court, 2012). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held the trial court properly denied the respirator manufacturers' summary judgment motion, so the Maciases' failure-to-warn claims went back to the trial court.
• Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Coates (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2018). The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgments for Coates against Mack Trucks and Ford on negligent failure to warn, and reversed the judgments for CertainTeed on Mack's and Ford's cross-claims, remanding for further proceedings; it held the evidence against Mack was legally sufficient.
• Mackie v. Young Sales Corp. (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2001). The Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the Appeals Panel's findings, held that James Mackie's voluntary retirement did not bar workers' compensation benefits, and affirmed the trial court's award for Dorothy Mackie based on the maximum weekly rate, against Young Sales Corporation.
• MacLachlan v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2019). The court granted American Optical summary judgment on the plaintiffs' unopposed common law claims and on the separate punitive damages count, but denied it on product exposure and causation, which it left for a jury.
• Madden v. Able Supply Co. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 2002). The court denied remand of the claims against Westinghouse (Viacom) under the federal officer removal statute, but severed the claims against the other forty-odd defendants and remanded them to Texas state court, partly granting the plaintiff's motion.
• Maddy v. Honeywell Internatl., Inc. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2020). The court of appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Honeywell, which had granted reconsideration and ruled against the executor of James Maddy's estate, and remanded for further proceedings; it held the appeal of the Civ.R. 60(B) denial moot.
• Maher v. Wcab (BP Oil Corp.) (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, 1989). The Commonwealth Court reversed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's affirmance of the referee's denial of benefits to claimant Maher against B.P. Oil Corporation and remanded for a determination of the date of disability and computation of benefits.
• Mahoney v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of $6,289,544 for plaintiffs Joan and Daniel Mahoney against Georgia-Pacific, rejecting its challenges to causation, attorney misconduct and the scope of the new trial.
• Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1993). The Second Circuit reversed the $226,038 judgment that Roberta Kranz, executrix of Lee Lewis's estate, won against Keene Corporation, and remanded for a new trial because consolidating 48 asbestos cases for trial was improper and prejudiced Keene.
• Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2016). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Cummins, CBS (as successor to Westinghouse) and Foster Wheeler against Charles and Elizabeth Malone, while finding the learned intermediary and government contractor defenses did not independently warrant judgment.
• Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2015). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for defendants Crane Co., Ingersoll Rand, Velan Valve, Zurn Industries and Pfizer, with prejudice, because the Malones filed notices of non-opposition, and recommended that the defendants' separate motion to dismiss be terminated as moot.
• Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2015). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment for nine defendants (Air & Liquid Systems, Armstrong International, Atwood & Morrill, Blackmer Pump, Crown Cork & Seal, Flowserve, Nash Engineering, Trane US and William Powell) and dismissing them with prejudice because plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition.
• Malone v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2015). The magistrate judge recommended converting Huntington Ingalls Industries' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 summary judgment motion and giving the Malones 30 days to respond, because the company relied on an affidavit outside the pleadings.
• Manchester v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted defendant Arrow Electronics' motion to withdraw its notice of removal and remanded the case to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish, so plaintiff Manchester prevailed on keeping the case in state court.
• Mannahan v. Eaton Corporation (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2016). The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed summary judgment for Palmer Products, Eaton and Arvin-Meritor (Rockwell) against Mannahan and his estate, because the evidence did not show he was probably exposed to any of their brake products.
• Mannix v. CBS Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, 2019). The District Court denied Patricia Mannix's motion to remand, holding that CBS Corporation's federal-officer removal was timely and that CBS had raised a colorable government contractor defense.
• Manz v. Brenntag NA (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2019). The district court denied plaintiff Robert Manz's motion to remand to New Jersey state court, so removal by defendants Imerys and Cyprus Amax stood.
• Manzi v. HK Porter Co. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1991). The Superior Court affirmed the judgment for defendant H.K. Porter against plaintiff James Manzi, holding the jury instruction that Manzi could sue again if he later developed a compensable asbestos injury was correct (Celotex was severed due to bankruptcy stay); one judge dissented.
• Marcel v. Delta Shipbuilding Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2010). The appeals court reversed the trial court's grant of Continental Insurance's exception of no right of action, which had dismissed the Marcel children's survival claim against the insurer of dissolved Delta Shipbuilding, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Marcel v. Delta Shipbuilding Company (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2010). The appeals court reversed the trial court's grant of Continental Insurance's exception of no right of action, which had dismissed the Marcel children's survival claim, and remanded the case; the plaintiffs won and Continental lost.
• Marcella v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, so the case stays in federal court, because Avondale (with Hopeman and Wayne) raised colorable federal defenses under the federal-officer removal statute.
• Marchand v. Asbestos Defendants (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2010). The appeals court granted the Marchands' writ in part, vacating the district court's ruling for Continental Insurance as to the survival claim, and denied the writ as to the wrongful death claim, which it found barred by the dissolved-corporation peremptive statute.
• Marcucci v. Wcab (BP Oil Co.) (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, 1986). The Commonwealth Court reversed the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board's order, which had denied benefits, and remanded for an award of death benefits to the widow, Olga Marcucci, against B.P. Oil Company.
• Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2024). The court granted Metalclad partial summary judgment, granted some defendants summary judgment on maritime non-pecuniary damages and on one product (Rockwell's Allen-Bradley equipment), denied most other defense summary judgment motions, denied the defense motions to exclude plaintiffs' experts, and partly excluded defense naval expert Herfel.
• Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2023). The district court denied the plaintiffs' (Michael and Victoria Marcus) motion to remand and for attorneys' fees, finding that the removing defendants (Greene Tweed, Air & Liquid Systems, Foster Wheeler) met the federal officer removal requirements.
• Margolis v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court denied American Biltrite, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Margolis plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, because fact issues remained on general and specific causation.
• Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1992). The en banc Superior Court reversed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Marinari's lung cancer action was not time-barred by the earlier discovery of pleural thickening.
• Marino v. Abex Corporation (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2022). The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Deborah Marino against Ford Motor Company, upholding the discovery sanctions; it found one hearsay ruling erroneous but harmless.
• Markovsky v. Crown Cork & Seal Co. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2014). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for Crown Cork & Seal, holding that Pennsylvania's successor asbestos-liability cap (15 Pa.C.S.A. § 1929.1) was constitutional, so the estate of James Markovsky lost.
• Marley v. Elliot Turbomachinery Co., Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2008). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Elliott Turbomachinery and Viad properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute, so the defendants prevailed on this motion.
• Marlin v. Bill Rich Const., Inc. (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, 1996). The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's summary judgment for the Wetzel County Board of Education, which had held the workers' claims barred by immunity, and remanded for further proceedings, so the workers won this appeal.
• Marquez v. Pac Operating Limited Partnership (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for PAC Operating Limited Partnership after a jury trial, holding that the trial court properly excluded Anthony Marquez's late-disclosed theory that PAC's predecessor owned the Coalinga city site, and properly denied his new trial motion.
• Marsh v. Chas Kurz & Company (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2024). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's exclusion of the plaintiffs' expert reports and its summary judgment for Chas Kurz, Chiquita, Farrell Lines and National Bulk Carriers, because there was no evidence Marsh was exposed to asbestos on their vessels.
• Marsh v. Continental Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The magistrate judge granted Continental Insurance's motion to quash plaintiff's 1,459 requests for admission and its motion for a protective order limiting the corporate deposition topics, and denied plaintiff's motion to compel as moot.
• Marsh v. Continental Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court denied Continental Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment seeking a dollar-for-dollar (pro tanto) credit for settlements and trust payments, ruling for the plaintiff estate administrator.
• Marsh v. Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The court denied International Paper Company's motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and for a more definite statement, so Marsh and cross-claimant Huntington Ingalls prevailed on these motions.
• Marshall v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 1988). The court granted the remaining defendants' (Celotex, Fibreboard, Keene, Pittsburg Corning) renewed motion for judgment, ruling that plaintiff Deborah Marshall could not proceed on a concert of action theory without showing any defendant supplied asbestos products to the naval station.
• Marshall v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 1987). The district court stayed the case and certified to the Michigan Supreme Court the question of whether a plaintiff proceeding on a concert of action theory must show that at least one tortious defendant actually supplied asbestos to the decedent's workplace, without deciding the final outcome between Marshall's estate and the defendants.
• Marshall v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 1987). The court denied the defendant asbestos manufacturers' motion for summary judgment, allowing the plaintiff's concert-of-action theory to go to trial.
• Marshall v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 1987). The court granted the defendant manufacturers' summary judgment motions on the alternative liability, market share liability and enterprise liability theories, and held the motion on the concert of action theory in abeyance pending a hearing on causation.
• Marteney v. Elementis Chemicals Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2018). The Court of Appeal affirmed the wrongful death judgment for Marty Marteney's adult children against Elementis Chemicals, rejecting Elementis's claims that the judgment was void and that it was owed larger settlement credits.
• Marteney v. Union Carbide Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Union Carbide's and Elementis's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, leaving the strict-liability judgment for Marie Marteney in place.