Asbestos Cases A–Z: R

175 decisions whose name begins with R.

• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied Plaintiff Felton Robichaux's motion to remand, holding that Huntington Ingalls (Avondale) properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute and did so on time.
• Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied plaintiff Felton Robichaux's motion for partial summary judgment on Avondale's government contractor and derivative sovereign immunity defenses, without prejudice, as premature, so Avondale gets time for discovery.
• Robinson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2014). The court granted the motion of defendants Flowserve, General Electric, Goulds Pumps and Tata Chemical and transferred the case from the District of New Jersey to the District of Wyoming.
• Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (Texas Supreme Court, 2010). The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, which had upheld summary judgment for Crown Cork & Seal, held Chapter 149 unconstitutionally retroactive as applied to the Robinsons' common-law claims, and remanded to the trial court.
• Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (Texas Court of Appeals, 2006). The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for Crown Cork & Seal, holding the 2003 Texas successor-liability statute was constitutional as applied and barred Barbara Robinson's claims against it.
• Robinson v. Ssw, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for SSW, Inc., holding the heirs' wrongful death suit was barred because they sued the dissolved Nebraska corporation after Nebraska's five-year corporate survival period ended.
• Robinson v. Union Carbide Corporation (Delaware Superior Court, 2019). The Delaware Superior Court granted Union Carbide's motion for summary judgment against Marianne Robinson, ruling for Union Carbide on both the failure-to-warn claim and the Ohio strict liability claim.
• Roca v. EI du Pont de Nemours and Co. (Delaware Supreme Court, 2004). The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment for DuPont, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Rhone-Poulenc, holding that Roca waived his Section 343 claim by not raising it in his opening brief.
• Rocco v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1985). The Third Circuit affirmed the verdicts against Johns-Manville and Pittsburgh Corning and the denial of new trial and JNOV, but held that payments from non-joint-tortfeasor (Group A) settlements should not reduce the verdict, and that Unarco's pro rata release still reduced the verdict despite its bankruptcy. Delay damages are limited to a non-settling defendant's pro rata share, and the case was remanded because the severed claims against Keene remain open.
• Rocha v. Brown & Gould, LLP (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, 2015). The district court granted summary judgment to the law firm Brown & Gould, attorney Daniel Brown and David Lipman, P.A. on all three counts and denied Nieves Rocha's cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
• Rochon v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2007). The court affirmed summary judgment for Kimberly-Clark on Mrs. Rochon's employer and landowner duty theories, reversed the dismissal of her general negligence claim, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2017). The court excluded the plaintiffs' experts' specific causation and "each and every exposure" opinions and granted summary judgment to Union Carbide and Georgia-Pacific on the Rockmans' remaining strict liability, negligence and loss of consortium claims.
• Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2017). The court granted five unopposed partial summary judgment motions for Union Carbide and Georgia-Pacific, ending the kidney cancer, breach of warranty, fraud, conspiracy, market share liability, aiding and abetting and punitive damages claims; strict liability, negligence and loss of consortium claims remain.
• Rodarmel v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 2011). The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment on the jury verdict for plaintiffs, holding that defendants Honeywell and Pneumo Abex were entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Rodney v. Akebono Brake Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court denied defendant Mercedes-Benz USA's motion for an out-of-state subpoena for part of plaintiff Almando Rodney's tissue block and for destructive digestion testing by its expert, so plaintiff prevailed.
• Rodrigue v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court granted summary judgment to the remaining Joint Defendants and Burmaster Land & Development, dismissing the plaintiffs' and Huntington Ingalls' claims against them with prejudice, because no one opposed the motions.
• Rodrigue v. Continental Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to Louisiana state court, finding the removing defendants had not shown that the non-diverse defendant Eagle, Inc. was improperly joined.
• Rodrigue v. Travelers Insurance Company (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2020). The appeals court reversed the district court's denial of Mr. Rodrigue's motion for refund of the unused jury deposit and remanded, so he was entitled to the deposit less $1,500.00 in jury costs.
• Roehling v. Nat. Gypsum Co. Gold Bond Bldg. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1986). The Fourth Circuit reversed summary judgment for National Gypsum and Owens-Illinois on the Huntley Power Station exposure and remanded for trial, but affirmed summary judgment for Celotex and on the DuPont and Ford plant exposures.
• Roemmich v. 3M Company (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 2022). The court affirmed the verdict for 3M on the strict products liability claim, but reversed and remanded for a new trial on the Roemmiches' negligence claim because of an erroneous proximate cause instruction and an unsupported superseding cause instruction.
• Rogers v. AO Smith Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The court granted summary judgment to Carrier, Crane, CBS/Westinghouse and General Electric, denied it to Copes Vulcan and Aurora Pump, and dismissed the claims for punitive damages and loss of consortium.
• Rohrbaugh v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1995). The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Owens-Corning Fiberglas, holding that its earlier decision was the law of the case and the plaintiffs, the daughters of Dorothy Palmer, offered no new evidence.
• Rohrbaugh v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1992). The Tenth Circuit vacated the judgment for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning and Celotex because the jury instructions wrongly imposed a duty to warn Mrs. Palmer, and remanded for a new trial, so the defendants prevailed on appeal.
• Roller v. Basic Const. Co. (Virginia Supreme Court, 1989). The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the Court of Appeals, which had affirmed the Industrial Commission's dismissal of Mrs. Roller's claim as time-barred, and remanded for further proceedings limited to the subrogation question, so Mrs. Roller won on limitations and Basic Construction lost.
• Rollin v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Foster Wheeler, Yarway and Elliott entered after the trial court granted JNOV, affirmed the alternative order granting a new trial on different grounds, and directed a new trial.
• Rollock v. 3M Company (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court granted Griffin Wheel Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, because plaintiff could not show Rollock was exposed to Griffin's brake shoes; the case continued against the other defendants.
• Roman v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied defendant Taco, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, leaving plaintiffs Roberto and Trudy Roman's claims against Taco for trial.
• Romano v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2017). The court affirmed the jury's liability and causation findings against Union Carbide and refused it a credit for Johns-Manville's fault, but reversed the damages ruling and raised the general damages award for the Romanos from $500,000 to $1,500,000.
• Rome v. Asbestos Defendants (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2011). The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment dismissing the Romes' claims against Dover Engineered Systems, Inc. and its alleged insurer Liberty Mutual, so the defendants won and the plaintiffs lost.
• Romero v. AC & S., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the estate's claims against Crane Co. continue toward trial.
• Rondon v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2016). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Hennessy Industries, holding that Renee Rondon, suing for her late husband's mesothelioma, raised triable issues on strict liability and negligence.
• Root v. Eastern Refractories Co., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 4th Dept., 2004). The Appellate Division reversed the order granting summary judgment to Eastern Refractories Co., denied the motion, and reinstated the executor's complaint against Eastern.
• Rosen v. Regents of University of California (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2007). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the Regents of the University of California and against Dr. Rosen's wife and children, upholding the nonsuit on negligence, the jury instructions and verdict form, and the evidence rulings.
• Rosenberg v. Celotex Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1985). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Barbara Rosenberg's wrongful death suit against Celotex and the other defendants, because she had no valid cause of action under New York law or under the Texas wrongful death statute.
• Rosling v. Associated Loggers Exchange (Montana Workers' Comp. Court, 2019). The Workers' Compensation Court held that McMillan's claim was timely, his asbestos-related disease was a compensable occupational disease, and insurer Associated Loggers Exchange was liable, awarding medical benefits, an impairment award, permanent total disability benefits and costs, but denying attorney fees and a penalty.
• Ross v. Union Carbide Corporation (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District, 2009). The en banc court affirmed summary judgment for Union Carbide, holding that the 1993 release signed by Homer and Marjorie Ross barred the survivors' exemplary-damages and loss-of-consortium claims, and it overruled Perez v. Todd Shipyards.
• Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company (Maryland Court of Appeals, 2020). Affirmed the circuit court's partial summary judgment for Zurich, holding that the judgment Rossello won against Mitchell must be allocated pro rata by Zurich's time on the risk (1974-1985), not paid in full by Zurich.
• Rost v. Ford Motor Co. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 2016). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the Rost estates against Ford Motor Company, holding that the causation testimony was proper and that, although consolidation with two other cases was error, Ford showed no prejudice.
• Rost v. Ford Motor Company (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2014). The Superior Court affirmed the judgment for Richard and Joyce Rost against Ford Motor Company, rejecting Ford's appeal and the Rosts' cross-appeal.
• Rothchild v. Crane Co. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2014). The court granted Union Carbide's motion to dismiss the amended complaint as to Union Carbide only, without prejudice, and gave the Rothchilds 30 days to amend with more specific allegations.
• Rothchild v. Crane Co. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2014). The court denied Lorillard Tobacco Company's motion to strike two allegations from the plaintiffs' amended complaint, so the Rothchilds' allegations stayed in the complaint.
• Rotondo v. Keene Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1992). The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Keene Corporation's motions for directed verdict, j.n.o.v. and a new trial, leaving the jury verdict for Rose Rotondo in place.
• Rourke v. Amchem Products, Inc. (Maryland Court of Appeals, 2004). The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals and the Baltimore City Circuit Court, which had compelled arbitration of the plaintiffs' settlement dispute; the CCR and its member companies won and the plaintiffs lost.
• Rousseau v. Johnson & Johnson (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2018). The court granted plaintiff Marilyn Rousseau's motion to remand and sent the case back to Louisiana state court, rejecting Johnson & Johnson's claim that the non-diverse defendant K&B was improperly joined.
• Roussell v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Westinghouse's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Marsha Roussell's claim against it with prejudice, because she offered no evidence of exposure to Westinghouse-related asbestos.
• Roussell v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted summary judgment to General Electric and Foster Wheeler because Roussell did not oppose the motions, and dismissed her claims against them with prejudice.
• Roussell v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The district court denied plaintiff Roussell's motion to dismiss Avondale's federal contractor defense and to remand to state court, so Avondale kept the federal forum.
• Roussell v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The district court denied plaintiff Marsha Roussell's motion to remand, holding that the Avondale Interests (Huntington Ingalls and Lamorak) properly removed the case under the federal-officer statute, so the case stays in federal court.
• Roverano v. John Crane, Inc. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 2020). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's order for percentage apportionment, holding that liability among strictly liable asbestos defendants John Crane and Brand is apportioned per capita (a win for the Roveranos). It also held that bankruptcy trusts may be put on the verdict sheet on appropriate requests and proofs, and remanded for a new trial on apportionment (a win for the defendants on that issue).
• Roverano v. John Crane, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2017). The Superior Court affirmed the denial of post-trial motions on every issue except the Fair Share Act, vacated the judgment, and remanded for a new trial to apportion the verdict among the tortfeasors, a partial win for John Crane and Brand Insulations over the Roveranos.