Asbestos Cases A–Z: M

385 decisions whose name begins with M.

• Miller v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 1989). The court granted summary judgment to defendants Celotex, Eagle-Picher, Keene and Owens-Illinois because plaintiff Raymond Miller's asbestos claim was filed after Colorado's three-year limitations period expired.
• Miller v. Foster Wheeler Co. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 1999). The court affirmed the trial court's partial summary judgment dismissing the estates' survival claims of Blecker and Holmes as time barred, against administrator Miller and in favor of the defendants.
• Miller v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, 1982). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, refusing to bar Johns-Manville from disputing that its asbestos insulation was defective and unreasonably dangerous, so Johns-Manville prevailed on the motion.
• Miller v. Mainard (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, 2015). The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the inmate's § 1983 complaint against Gail Mainard and the other Arkansas Department of Correction defendants without prejudice for failure to state a claim, because he alleged no actual injury from asbestos exposure.
• Millet v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The court granted Foster Wheeler's unopposed summary judgment motion against third-party plaintiff Huntington Ingalls, and denied General Electric's and CBS's motions as premature, without prejudice to re-urging them later.
• Millison v. EI du Pont de Nemours (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 1988). The Appellate Division affirmed the jury verdicts and judgment for the du Pont employees and their spouses against du Pont and its two plant doctors, holding that admitting the OSHA citations was error but harmless.
• Millsaps v. Aluminum Company of America (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2012). The court denied Alcoa's motion to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, so plaintiff Millsaps may depose Dr. Cullen, with Alcoa's corporate designee Jeff Shockey to be deposed first.
• Millsaps v. Aluminum Company of America (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part plaintiff Millsaps's motion to compel, denying his demand for all 1300 boxes of Alcoa documents but ordering a prompt, agreed-term search and production, and denied Alcoa's motion for protective order.
• Milone v. Aii Acquisition Corp., LLC (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2022). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for AII Acquisition Corp. (successor to Holland Furnace) against Elaine Milone, finding no competent evidence that Durwood Milone was exposed to asbestos from Holland furnaces.
• Mine Safety Appliances Company v. Aiu Insurance Company (Delaware Superior Court, 2014). The court granted MSA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the expected/intended provision in the North River, Hartford and Travelers policies does not bar coverage for claims over MSA's allegedly defective respirators, and denied the insurers' requests for more discovery.
• Mineweaser v. One Beacon America Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of New York, 2015). The court denied the excess insurers' motion to file their settlement agreements with Hedman under seal and subject to a protective order, and granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel production of those agreements.
• Miranda v. Abex Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court denied Goodyear's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Ernesto and Diana Miranda because factual issues remained about whether Mr. Miranda was exposed to asbestos in Goodyear-branded brakes.
• Miranda v. Abex Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, consolidating the Miranda, DiBenedetto and Sommer actions for a joint trial over the defendants' objections, and ordered the Cheney action tried separately right afterward.
• Mitchell v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, 2019). The district court granted Maureen Mitchell's motion and remanded the case to Massachusetts Superior Court on equitable grounds, over Johnson & Johnson's removal based on the Imerys bankruptcy.
• Mitchell, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty (Maryland Court of Appeals, 1991). The Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment for Maryland Casualty and remanded for a declaratory judgment that Mitchell, the insured, was entitled to a defense and indemnity because coverage is triggered at least by exposure to its asbestos products during the policy period.
• Mobil Oil Corp. v. Bailey (Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District, 2006). The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment for the Baileys and rendered judgment for Mobil, finding no legally sufficient evidence that asbestos exposure at Mobil's facilities caused James Bailey's lung cancer.
• Moe v. BNSF Railway Company (U.S. District Court, District of Montana, 2022). The court ordered that plaintiff Mary Diana Moe's pathology materials be delivered to BNSF Railway's defense counsel and its consulting pathologist for review under the conditions the parties agreed to.
• Moeller v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 2011). The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Garlock's motion for judgment as a matter of law, so Garlock won and the jury's $516,094 verdict for Olwen Moeller could not stand.
• Mohler v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2014). The court denied plaintiff Elaine Mohler's motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court because defendant Crane Company showed a colorable government contractor defense under the federal officer removal statute.
• Mohn v. CBS Corporation (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2018). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, holding that Wisconsin's construction statute of repose barred Mary Ellen Mohn's claims and that the statute was not unconstitutional.
• Moldow v. AI Friedman, LP (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court denied Colgate-Palmolive Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Chris Moldow's complaint, the cross-claims and the punitive damages claim, finding issues of fact for trial.
• Moline v. Johnson & Johnson (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court granted Dr. Moline's petition to quash the New Jersey subpoena, denied Johnson & Johnson's cross-motion to compel production and her deposition, denied their motion against Northwell Health, and consolidated the two proceedings for decision.
• Money v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Comp. Fund (Delaware Supreme Court, 1991). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's directed verdict for the Manville Trust Fund and Celotex (appeal stayed as to Celotex) against the five plaintiffs, who lost for lack of direct expert medical testimony on causation.
• Monlux v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, 2024). The district court granted Elaine Monlux's motion to remand and sent the case back to King County Superior Court, ruling that Foster Wheeler had not shown that federal officer removal was proper.
• Monroe v. Maco Workers Comp Trust (Montana Workers' Comp. Court, 2014). The Workers' Compensation Court held Lincoln County's insurer, MACo, liable for Dwane Monroe's asbestos-related disease and death under the last injurious exposure rule, found the claim timely, and awarded Karen Monroe widow's benefits, burial expenses and costs, but denied the estate's 100% permanent partial disability claim.
• Montaney v. JM Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2013). The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment that had dismissed the Montaneys' claim against J-M Manufacturing, finding enough evidence for a jury to infer Montaney was exposed to asbestos-cement pipe JMM sold.
• Montebianco v. AO Smith Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Montebianco and Reilly asbestos cases for a joint trial, so the defendants prevailed on the motion.
• Mooney v. Fibreboard Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 1980). The court granted plaintiff Mooney partial summary judgment, barring ten defendants from relitigating whether their asbestos insulation products were defective and unreasonably dangerous; it denied summary judgment against Nicolet on whether it made or sold asbestos products.
• Moore v. Aker Oil and Gas US, LLC, W Va: Supreme Court of Appeals 2015 (West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, 2015). The court affirmed the Board of Review's order, which upheld the denial of Judy Moore's claim for dependent's benefits against Aker Oil and Gas US, LLC, because she offered no evidence that her husband was exposed to asbestos at work in West Virginia.
• Moore v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2017). The court granted summary judgment to Alcatel-Lucent (successor to Western Electric) and dismissed the Moores' claims with prejudice because the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity provisions barred them.
• Moore v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2006). The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment dismissing the estate's claims against Global Motorsports Group, because the evidence did not support an inference that Moore was exposed to asbestos from GMG's products.
• Moore v. Crane Company (U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island, 2021). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding Electric Boat had not met its burden for federal officer removal, and sent the case back to Rhode Island Superior Court; the Moores prevailed over Electric Boat.
• Moore v. Ericsson, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2010). The Superior Court affirmed the judgment on the molded jury verdict for Judith Moore and the Estate of Donnie Moore against Ericsson, Inc., and rejected both Ericsson's appeal and Moore's cross-appeal.
• Morales v. Anco Insulations Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Avondale's unopposed Rule 54(b) motion and directed entry of final judgment in favor of Avondale, Lamorak and Travelers, whom it had earlier dismissed on LHWCA preemption grounds.
• Morales v. Anco Insulations Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted summary judgment to Avondale (Huntington Ingalls), its insurers Lamorak and Travelers, and dismissed plaintiffs' state-law tort claims against them with prejudice as preempted by the LHWCA; plaintiffs lost.
• Moran v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, which rested on a jury finding that Richard Moran was a sophisticated user, and remanded for retrial, with Moran recovering his appeal costs.
• Moran v. G. & WH Corson, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1991). The Superior Court reversed the order that marked the compensatory verdict satisfied, reinstated the compensatory verdict for the plaintiff estate against the appellee suppliers, and remanded for a delay damages hearing, but affirmed the striking of the punitive damages award against Corson and Penn's Valley.
• Morey v. BNSF Railway Company (U.S. District Court, District of Montana, 2023). The district court remanded Karen Morey's asbestos suit against BNSF Railway to the Montana Asbestos Claims Court after the federal-officer defendant (RTX) was dismissed, so Morey obtained the state forum and BNSF's side lost the federal forum.
• Morgan v. Aurora Pump Co. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2011). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment dismissal of the Morgans' claims against the pump and valve makers (Aurora, Buffalo, IMO, Warren, Weir and Powell) and remanded for trial.
• Morgan v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama, 2013). The court denied plaintiff Ronald Morgan's motions for Rule 54(b) final judgment and for a stay, so he could not immediately appeal the summary judgments for Crane Co., General Electric, Warren Pumps and CBS; the case against John Crane, Inc. stayed on track for trial.
• Morgan v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama, 2013). The court granted defendant Albany International Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the estate of Rueben Morgan's claims against Albany with prejudice, finding the 1972-74 exposure claims time-barred and no evidence of post-1979 exposure to Albany products.
• Morgan v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama, 2013). The district court denied John Crane, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, so the estate's claims against John Crane went forward.
• Morgan v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama, 2013). The court granted Warren Pumps, LLC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the estate's claims against Warren with prejudice, so Warren won and the plaintiff lost.
• Morgan v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama, 2013). The court granted Honeywell International's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's claims against it with prejudice, because the 1956-1958 exposures were time-barred and there was no evidence of post-1979 exposure to Bendix products.
• Morgan v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama, 2013). The court granted The Gorman-Rupp Company's motion for summary judgment under the bare metal defense and dismissed the plaintiff's claims against it with prejudice.
• Morgan v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama, 2013). The court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's claims against GE with prejudice, finding the pre-1979 exposure claims time-barred and no sufficient evidence of later exposure to GE products.
• Morgan v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama, 2013). The court granted CBS Corporation (successor to Westinghouse) summary judgment, dismissing the estate's claims against it with prejudice, because pre-May 1979 exposures were time-barred and no admissible evidence showed later exposure to Westinghouse asbestos products.
• Morgan v. Dow Chemical Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2017). The court granted in part Curtis Morgan's motion to remand, sending the case back to Louisiana state court because Avondale's federal officer removal was untimely, and denied Morgan's request for attorneys' fees and costs.
• Morgan v. Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2018). The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's remand order, holding Huntington Ingalls (Avondale) removed on time, and remanded for the district court to decide the federal officer requirements; it dismissed Murphy Oil's appeal for lack of standing.
• Morgan v. JM Manufacturing Co., Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 1st Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed the compensatory judgment for the Morgans against J-M Manufacturing but reversed the $15,000,000 punitive damages award for lack of evidence about officers, directors or managing agents.