Asbestos Cases A–Z: M

385 decisions whose name begins with M.

• Morgan v. Johns-Manville Corp. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1986). The court reversed summary judgment for the defendant asbestos companies in the Bagian case and remanded it, and affirmed summary judgment for the defendants in the Alice and Morgan cases because their claims were time-barred.
• Morin v. AutoZone Northeast, Inc. (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2010). The Appeals Court reversed summary judgment for AutoZone and Orleans Auto Supply, so the estate's claims against them go forward, and affirmed summary judgment for Great Dane.
• Morton v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1995). The Court of Appeal struck $2 million in noneconomic damages, $63,000 in future medical expenses and $1,090,467 in future earning capacity from Mr. Morton's award, reduced Mrs. Morton's consortium award to $30,000, and otherwise affirmed the judgment against Owens-Corning Fiberglas.
• Morvant v. Asbestos Corporation Limited (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2013). The federal district court granted plaintiff Mary Morvant's motion to remand and sent the case back to Orleans Parish civil court, rejecting defendant Asbestos Corporation Limited's removal.
• Morvant v. Maryland Casualty Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The court denied the insurers' motion to stay the federal direct-action suit under Colorado River abstention (or alternatively to continue deadlines), so plaintiff Morvant's suit against the insurers proceeds.
• Motions for Access OF Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2013). The District Court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's orders denying Garlock Sealing Technologies access to the Rule 2019 exhibits, ruling for Garlock over the law firms, asbestos claimant committees and reorganized debtors, subject to limits on Garlock's use of the information.
• Moutal v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The court denied defendant Mannington Mills' motion for summary judgment because Mannington did not make a prima facie showing that its sheet flooring was not a substantial cause of plaintiff Paul Moutal's lung cancer.
• Mouton v. Morton International, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 2007). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion by Terrell and Teryha Mouton to vacate the dismissal, so the settlement-based dismissals in favor of Morton, the executive defendants and their insurer stood.
• Moxam v. Abb, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2022). The trial court granted defendant Graybar Electric Company's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff estate's punitive damages claim against Graybar.
• Mrjaj v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2021). The court granted defendant International Chimney Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against it, because the evidence did not show decedent was exposed to asbestos from an ICC product.
• Mt. McKinley Ins. Co. v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2014). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's confirmation of Pittsburgh Corning's reorganization plan and its § 524(g) asbestos channeling injunction, holding that objecting insurer Mt. McKinley lacked standing; the plan parties won and Mt. McKinley lost.
• Mtr OF Diegelman v. City (New York Court of Appeals, 2016). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, which had denied the Diegelmans leave to serve a late notice of claim on the City of Buffalo, and remitted the matter for consideration of the remaining issues; the claimants prevailed over the City.
• Reynolds v. Garlock Sealing Technologies (Mtr OF Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litigation) (New York Court of Appeals, 2007). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order affirming the judgment and ordered a new trial, ruling for Garlock Sealing Technologies against plaintiffs Reynolds because the undisclosed high-low agreement with Niagara denied Garlock a fair trial.
• Mtr OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2017). The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for Ford Motor Company, upholding the trial court's order setting aside the jury's verdict for plaintiff Mary Juni, and dismissed the appeal from the order as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
• Mtr OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (New York Court of Appeals, 2016). The Court of Appeals affirmed both Appellate Division orders, leaving in place the plaintiffs' jury verdicts against Crane Co. in the Dummitt and Suttner mesothelioma cases.
• Mtr OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (New York Court of Appeals, 2014). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, holding the Andruckis' personal injury notice of claim was sufficient for the wrongful death and survivorship claims against the Port Authority, and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for undecided issues.
• Mtr. OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (New York Supreme Court, 1997). The court granted Rapid-American's motion for a new trial on damages unless each plaintiff agreed to a reduced pain-and-suffering award, upheld its rulings on the interrogatories, jury charge and fault apportionment, and set aside the recklessness finding for the three pre-1947 plaintiffs (White, Gantcher, Mangialomini).
• Mullen v. American Circuit Breaker Corporation (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2023). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for IntriCon Corporation (formerly Selas) and remanded for further proceedings, siding with the estate administratrix Debbie Mullen.
• Mullinex v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2022). The court granted Patricia Mullinex's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings on liability against John Crane, Inc., deeming the wrongful death allegations admitted, and set the case for a trial on damages.
• Mullinex v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2022). The district judge sustained in part the plaintiff's objection and vacated in part the magistrate judge's order, ruling that John Crane must show the Navy knew of the asbestos hazard of its gaskets and packing, while still barring evidence of Navy negligence.
• Mullinex v. John Crane, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2020). The court denied John Crane, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' maritime law claims, finding that admiralty jurisdiction exists, so the Mullinexes prevailed on the motion.
• Munna v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court granted plaintiff Joseph Munna's motion for a joint trial with Lamonica v AO Smith Water Products Co., over the opposition of several defendants, and set trial for October 10, 2023.
• Munoz v. AO Smith Water Prods. CO (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court denied defendant DAP, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so plaintiff Maria Munoz's claims against DAP continue.
• Murat v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Exxon Mobil Corp. and SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., finding no triable issue that they breached a duty of care to Mr. Murat, and the daughters lost.
• Murphree v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1982). The Sixth Circuit reversed the jury verdict for defendant Raybestos-Manhattan and remanded for a new trial, ruling for the plaintiff widow on the limitations and causation-instruction issues.
• Murphy v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court denied Rohm and Haas's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (allowing 60 days of jurisdictional discovery) and Honeywell's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and ordered plaintiffs to file a more detailed Fourth Amended Complaint.
• Murphy v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2016). The court denied plaintiff Carolyn Murphy's motion to remand, finding the non-diverse Louisiana defendants improperly joined and no waiver of removal by Rohm and Haas, so the case stayed in federal court.
• Murphy v. General Electric Company (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 2009). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, holding that General Electric and Buffalo Pumps could remove the case under the federal officer removal statute.
• Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (South Carolina Supreme Court, 2003). The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, which had reversed the circuit court's dismissal under the Door Closing Statute, so the Murphys' suit against DuPont may proceed in South Carolina.
• Murphy v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (South Carolina Court of Appeals, 2001). The en banc Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Door Closing Statute and remanded, ruling for the Murphys against Rapid American and Du Pont.
• Murphy v. ST. Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc. (West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals, 2024). The intermediate appeals court affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board of Review's order denying Linda Murphy dependents' benefits, so the employer and the Old Fund prevailed over the widow.
• Murphy v. Union Carbide Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2021). The district court granted Robert Murphy's motion to remand to the Baltimore City Circuit Court because Hopeman Brothers failed to show a causal nexus for federal officer removal, and denied Hopeman's motion for leave to file a surreply.
• Murray v. 3M Company (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2017). The court granted the defendants' motion and ruled that Tennessee substantive law, not Virginia law, governs Mr. Murray's asbestos personal injury action, a ruling that favors the defendants.
• Myers v. Bremen Casting, Inc. (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2016). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to Bremen Casting and Mastic Home Exteriors on the non-delegable duty and premises liability claims, affirmed the denial of summary judgment on respondeat superior, and remanded for further proceedings, so the Myerses prevailed on all three claims at this stage.
• Myers v. Crouse-Hinds Division OF Cooper Industries, Inc. (Indiana Supreme Court, 2016). The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment to General Electric and Owens-Illinois in the Geyman case and reversed summary judgment for Crouse-Hinds and the other defendants in the Myers case, so the plaintiffs won and the cases were remanded.