Asbestos Cases A–Z: M

385 decisions whose name begins with M.

• Mazoue v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2003). The court affirmed the trial court's rejection of the grandchildren's claims, holding that the decedent's surviving daughter, Ms. Marsh, was the only party entitled to continue the action and keep the settlement.
• McAllister v. McDERMOTT, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2020). The court granted summary judgment to Tate Andale (no successor liability) and Velan Valve (no evidence of exposure) and denied it to Spirax Sarco, Air & Liquid Systems and Flowserve, so the plaintiffs' claims against those three go forward.
• McAllister v. McDERMOTT, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2020). The court denied defendant Nash Engineering's motion for partial summary judgment on the McAllister plaintiffs' damages claims, but limited recovery of loss of income and household services to the surviving spouse as executrix of the estate.
• McAllister v. McDERMOTT, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2018). The court denied plaintiff James McAllister's motion for an expedited trial setting, which Air & Liquid Systems Corporation had opposed.
• McALVEY v. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2015). The district court denied the defendants' motions in limine to exclude or limit plaintiff Gerald McAlvey's exposure expert Jerome Spear, so the plaintiff prevailed on the motions.
• McALVEY v. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2015). The district court denied Owens-Illinois, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, finding enough circumstantial evidence of exposure for plaintiff McAlvey's claim to go forward.
• McAskill v. American Marine Holding Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2009). The Louisiana Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Eagle, Branton and Commercial Union and remanded for further proceedings, so plaintiff McAskill's claims go forward.
• McCann v. Foster Wheeler (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 8th Division, 2008). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Foster Wheeler, holding the trial court wrongly applied Oklahoma's statute of repose instead of California law, and remanded for further proceedings, with costs to the McCanns.
• McCann v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (California Supreme Court, 2010). The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that Oklahoma's statute of repose, not California law, governs the timeliness of McCann's claim against Foster Wheeler (a win for Foster Wheeler), and remanded to the Court of Appeal to decide whether the boiler was an improvement to real property.
• McCann v. Foster Wheller, LLC (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 8th Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing Terry and Lucille McCann's claims against Foster Wheeler, LLC, holding Oklahoma's statute of repose barred them on remand from the California Supreme Court.
• McCarty v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, 1980). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment based on collateral estoppel, so the asbestos product defendants were not barred from relitigating product defect and state-of-the-art issues decided in Borel.
• McCauley v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1998). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's refusal to remove a compulsory nonsuit entered against plaintiff Bradley McCauley on statute of limitations grounds, and remanded for a new trial, ruling against the defendants.
• McClain v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1998). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting Betti McClain a new trial limited to wrongful death damages and its exclusion of evidence of her cohabitation, so Owens-Corning lost.
• McCloskey v. Allis-Chalmers Products Liability Trust (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court denied Lincoln Electric Company's motion to intervene as a defendant, so the plaintiffs' Navy-exposure case proceeds without Lincoln and its post-service welding-rod claims.
• McCloskey v. AO Smith Water Prod. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court granted Con Edison summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim, which plaintiffs did not oppose, but denied the rest of its motion, so the common-law claims against Con Edison go forward.
• McCloskey v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied Mario & DiBono's motion to set aside the verdict on causation, recklessness, apportionment, pain and suffering and consolidation, but ordered a new trial on loss of consortium damages unless plaintiffs accept a reduction of that award from $2 million to $340,000.
• McCloskey v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs' claims against it continue, and granted Goodyear Canada, Inc.'s motion as unopposed, dismissing the claims against it.
• McCloskey v. Cemline Corporation (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2015). The Superior Court held the plaintiffs' appeal timely, then vacated the trial court's judgment on the pleadings for PPG Industries and remanded for further proceedings, a loss for PPG and a win for the plaintiffs.
• McClung v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2019). The district court denied Plaintiff's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's recommendations as modified, found no personal jurisdiction over General Electric or Boeing, denied their motions to dismiss, and severed and transferred the claims against GE to the Southern District of West Virginia and against Boeing to the District of Delaware.
• McClung v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2017). The court severed the claims against General Electric and transferred them to the Southern District of West Virginia, granting General Electric's request and denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as moot.
• McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Illinois Supreme Court, 1999). The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and the jury verdicts for the three plaintiffs, and ordered judgment entered for Owens Corning and Owens-Illinois because the evidence did not prove a civil conspiracy.
• McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 1998). The appellate court affirmed the jury verdicts for plaintiffs Bicknell, Thacker and McClure against Owens Corning Fiberglas and (in McClure) Owens-Illinois, and remanded only so the trial court could apply setoffs for settlements with other defendants.
• McCormick v. CE Thurston & Sons, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 1997). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand and sent the case back to the Newport News state circuit court, rejecting C.E. Thurston & Sons' federal enclave and federal officer removal grounds.
• McCROSSIN v. Imo Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2015). The court denied Lockheed Shipbuilding Company's motion for reconsideration of the earlier denial of summary judgment, so the plaintiff's claims against Lockheed continue.
• McCROSSIN v. Imo Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2015). The court denied Fraser's Boiler Service's motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment, finding genuine factual disputes on its superseding cause, strict liability and government contractor defenses, so plaintiff Connie McCrossin's claims against Fraser's continued.
• McCROSSIN v. Imo Industries, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2015). The district court denied summary judgment motions by Lone Star Industries and Lockheed Shipbuilding, finding genuine factual disputes on causation (and on superseding cause and derivative sovereign immunity), so plaintiff's claims proceed.
• McDaniel v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2021). The district court granted Covil Corporation summary judgment on all claims and excluded plaintiffs' expert Charles Ay, finding no evidence of exposure to Covil-attributable asbestos and, alternatively, no duty owed to the spouse of a non-employee; the case was dismissed.
• McDaniel v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2021). The district court granted summary judgment to Daniel International Corporation on all of Deborah and Kenneth McDaniel's claims and denied Daniel's motions in limine as moot.
• McDaniel v. Revlon, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2020). The court granted plaintiffs Laura and Edward McDaniel's motion to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) over the objection of defendants WCD and Revlon, so plaintiffs could re-file in New York state court.
• McDERMID v. 3M Company (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2023). The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment for General Electric and CBS Corp. (successor to Westinghouse) against the McDermid plaintiffs' negligent supervision claims and held the remaining claims time-barred by the statute of repose.
• McDonald v. AC &S., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied defendant Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, leaving the estate's claims against Crane Co. for trial.
• McDonald v. CBS Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied defendant Hoffman-New Yorker, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs' claims against Hoffman continue.
• McDowell v. Burlington Northern Santa FE Railway Company (U.S. District Court, District of Montana, 2017). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, and sent the case back to Montana state court because the State of Montana's presence as a defendant defeated complete diversity; BNSF lost its removal bid.
• McElwee v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). The magistrate judge granted Huntington Ingalls' motion to compel and ordered plaintiff Robert McElwee to appear for deposition on April 1, 2024, as scheduled.
• McFarland v. Abb, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2024). The court denied IMI Fabi, LLC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, without prejudice to renewal, and ordered jurisdictional discovery to be completed by May 20, 2024, so the plaintiff estate won the right to discovery but did not yet establish jurisdiction.
• McGill v. Conwed Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 2017). The federal district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court and granted Conwed Corporation's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the case without prejudice.
• McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2002). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Kaiser Gypsum and Kaiser Cement, holding the plaintiffs, the family of James McGonnell, had not shown a triable issue that he was exposed to the defendants' asbestos-containing products.
• McGUFFIE v. Mead Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court granted summary judgment to MW Custom Papers, LLC (successor to Mead Corp.) against plaintiffs Alford and Iris McGuffie, because there was no evidence Mead assumed a duty of safety at its former subsidiary's plant; the limitations question was not reached.
• McGUFFIE v. Mead Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, 2014). The district court granted summary judgment to MW Custom Papers, LLC and MeadWestvaco Corporation, holding MW Custom Papers was the only proper defendant and that the McGuffies' 1995 release barred the claim, and denied the plaintiff's motion to strike.
• McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2014). The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's defense verdict for Lorillard Tobacco Company and Hollingsworth & Vose Company against the estate of William McGuire, finding no reversible error.
• McINDOE v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2016). The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for shipbuilders Huntington Ingalls and Bath Iron Works against the heirs of James McIndoe, holding the warships were not products for strict liability and the heirs could not show substantial-factor causation.
• McIsaac v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2023). The court allowed summary judgment for defendant Air & Liquid Systems (successor to Buffalo Pumps) against plaintiff Irene McIsaac and denied her Rule 56(d) application for further discovery.
• McKENNEY'S Inc. v. Sinyard (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2019). The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court's order, which had reversed the Board's denial of Kevin Sinyard's workers' compensation claim, so McKenney's and Travelers won and Sinyard lost.
• McKenzie v. AW Chesterson Co. (Oregon Court of Appeals, 2016). The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment that the trial court had granted to Warren Pumps on the McKenzies' strict liability, negligence and loss of consortium claims, and remanded for further proceedings.
• McKim v. AO Smith Water Prod. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court granted the boiler defendants' forum non conveniens motion on condition that all defendants waive jurisdictional and limitations defenses in another forum, staying the action and later dismissing it, against the McKim plaintiffs.
• McKinney v. Hobart Bros. Co. (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 2018). The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment on the jury verdict for plaintiff Charles McKinney, holding that defendant Hobart Brothers Company was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• McLaughlin v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to reargue its earlier order, leaving in place summary judgment for defendant LILCO based on the 1993 settlement and general release.
• McLaughlin v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court granted Long Island Lighting Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the McLaughlins' complaint and all cross-claims against it, because their 1993 settlement and general release barred the claims; the action continued against the other defendants.
• McLaughlin v. C&d Contractors (Delaware Superior Court, 2022). The Superior Court reversed the Industrial Accident Board's use of the 1989 last-exposure date for the average weekly wage, affirmed its use of the 2017 diagnosis date for the maximum rate, and remanded, so the widow of William McLaughlin Jr. prevailed over C&D Contractors.
• McMann v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2014). The district court denied the McManns' motion to remand, holding that Westinghouse (CBS) and Crane Co. properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute because they showed a colorable government contractor defense and a causal nexus.