Asbestos Cases A–Z: S

338 decisions whose name begins with S.

• Sabetian v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2020). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the Chevron and Exxon defendants, holding they owed no duty of care to Sabetian, and upheld discovery sanctions against Sabetian and his counsel in favor of the Exxon defendants.
• Sabetian v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2021). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Soraya Sabetian (substituted for her late husband) against the Fluor defendants, upholding the denial of their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.
• Sabol v. Allied Glove Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2011). The Superior Court affirmed the discovery order limiting discovery against Carnegie Mellon University, reversed summary judgment for CMU on workers' compensation exclusivity, and remanded for a fact-finder to decide how much exposure occurred while Dr. Sabol was a student rather than an employee.
• Sadowski v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the Sadowskis' claims against it continue.
• Sadowski v. AO Smith Water Products (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court denied Lennox Industries' motion for summary judgment, so the Sadowskis' claims against Lennox continue.
• Saffold v. Bondex International, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2011). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the Saffold plaintiffs against Bondex, holding that Bondex forfeited its challenge to the jury's allocation of fault for noneconomic damages.
• Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Company (Washington Supreme Court, 2008). The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, held the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing for forum non conveniens without considering the effect of MDL transfer, and remanded; Sales prevailed over Weyerhaeuser on this point.
• Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Company (Washington Court of Appeals, 2nd Division, 2007). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's forum non conveniens dismissal in favor of Weyerhaeuser and remanded with instructions to condition dismissal on Weyerhaeuser's stipulation to proceed in Arkansas state courts, benefiting Sales.
• Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 1st Division, 2017). The Court of Appeal reversed the $3.6 million punitive damages award against Crown Cork & Seal for lack of evidence of its own ability to pay, and affirmed the rest of the judgment for Saller's wife and daughters.
• Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 1st Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Crown Cork & Seal because the trial court refused to give the consumer expectations and strict liability failure-to-warn instructions, leaving the case open for retrial; plaintiffs recovered their appeal costs.
• Salvemini v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2025). A magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Buffalo Pumps (Air & Liquid Systems) on all claims, and granting in part and denying in part the motions of ConocoPhillips and Hess, so that Salvemini's own Jones Act, maritime and punitive damages claims survive while all claims over his wife's take-home exposure are dismissed.
• Sampey v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of Goulds Pumps and Crown Cork & Seal and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against them with prejudice.
• Sampey v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted Crescent Materials' unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against it with prejudice.
• Sampey v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted the unopposed summary judgment motions of Grefco and Viking Pump and dismissed the claims against them by the plaintiffs and crossclaimant Avondale with prejudice.
• Sampey v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted Hopeman's unopposed motion, joined by Avondale, Travelers, International Paper and Amchem, and dismissed with prejudice Ethel Sampey's loss of consortium, service and society claims against them.
• Sampey v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2020). The court denied plaintiff Ethel Sampey's motion to remand, holding that the Avondale Interests' federal-officer removal was timely and rested on a colorable Boyle defense.
• Sanchez v. Air & Liquid Systems, Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2018). The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to Alameda County Superior Court because defendant Aurora Pump failed to show a colorable government-contractor defense for federal-officer removal, and awarded plaintiffs $3,500 in attorney's fees.
• Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted seven unopposed summary judgment motions by John Crane, Pharmacia, Bayer CropScience, Crane Company, Century Indemnity, Zurich American and Goulds Pumps, dismissing all claims against them with prejudice.
• Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court granted unopposed summary judgment for Crown Cork & Seal, Atwood & Morrill, and Crescent Materials, dismissing plaintiff's claims against them with prejudice.
• Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The district court granted unopposed summary judgment for Viking Pump and Grefco, dismissing the plaintiff's claims against them with prejudice for lack of evidence of exposure to their products.
• Sanchez v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2021). The court granted Avondale's motion to dismiss Sanchez's loss of consortium claim and granted Lamorak Insurance's unopposed motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims against Lamorak.
• Sandoval v. American Appliance Manufacturing Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2017). The Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment and summary adjudication for AAMC on the Sandovals' negligence, strict liability, loss of consortium and punitive damages claims, affirmed as to the premises liability and warranty claims they had dismissed, and remanded.
• Santos v. AC McLOON Oil Co. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2015). The court stayed the vessel purchaser defendants' summary judgment motion and gave plaintiff three months to complete depositions of Blount Marine, rather than granting or denying the motion.
• Santos v. AC McLOON Oil Co. (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2013). The Superior Court denied the six out-of-state ferry company defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied dismissal of the failure-to-warn, negligence, strict liability, implied merchantability warranty and wrongful death claims, but dismissed the express warranty and implied fitness-for-purpose warranty claims; plaintiff prevailed mostly.
• Sargent v. Paccar, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Albany, 2020). The court denied PACCAR Inc.'s (Peterbilt's) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Sargent plaintiffs' complaint and cross claims, finding the defendant did not meet its initial burden and that fact issues remained.
• Sarjeant v. Foster Wheeler LLC (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2024). The court granted Vanderbilt's summary judgment motion as to Sarjeant's use of a DAP product, denied it as to the Kaiser Gypsum products, and deferred ruling on the fraud and punitive damages claims.
• Sarjeant v. Foster Wheeler LLC (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2024). The court granted plaintiff James Sarjeant's motion to compel Foster Wheeler LLC to produce documents about its boilers on six ships repaired at Todd Shipyards, and ordered production within 10 days.
• Sarkozy v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2008). The Appellate Division affirmed the jury judgments for plaintiffs Patton, the Wilson estate and the Grube estate against Scapa Dryer Fabrics, rejecting Scapa's challenges to the damages, the lack of apportionment, and the claimed trial errors.
• Sarradet v. the Dow Chemical Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2014). The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation as modified, found the Louisiana officer-defendants improperly joined, and denied plaintiff Sarradet's motion to remand, so Dow Chemical kept the case in federal court.
• Sason v. Dykes Lbr. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court denied defendant Dykes Lumber Company's motion for summary judgment on causation, so plaintiff's claim against it continues.
• Sason v. Dykes Lumber Co., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2023). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Dykes Lumber Company's summary judgment motion, so plaintiff Raphael Sason's claims against Dykes Lumber continue.
• Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Company (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2008). The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, which had reversed the trial court's judgment on the pleadings for Alcoa, and remanded the estate's claim against Alcoa for further proceedings.
• Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Company, Inc. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, 2007). The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment on the pleadings for Alcoa and reinstated the estate's claims against Alcoa for further proceedings.
• Satterfield v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District, 2008). The court of appeals reversed the summary judgment for Crown Cork & Seal and remanded, holding the Texas successor-asbestos-liability statute unconstitutional as applied to Satterfield's pending claim; Satterfield won, Crown Cork lost, and the Chief Justice dissented.
• Saunders v. HK Porter Co., Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 1986). The court granted summary judgment to the defendants against Grimes and Saunders because their claims were time-barred, dismissing their cases with prejudice, and denied summary judgment against Pruden because defendants did not show he was injured more than two years before suing.
• Savianeso v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The trial court granted defendant QCP (Bakers Pride)'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint against it, ruling against plaintiff June Savianeso; the action continued against the other defendants.
• Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand and kept the case in federal court after the Avondale defendants were dismissed, with the insurer defendants prevailing.
• Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court granted the Avondale Interests' motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' wrongful death claims against them and Travelers Indemnity Company, leaving the survival claim in place.
• Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2019). The court granted in part and denied in part Avondale's motion, holding that five of eight earlier releases (Champion, Met Life, Amchem, Chesterton, A.P. Green) covered Savoie's future mesothelioma claim, while the B & W, Combustion Engineering and Garlock releases did not.
• Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2016). The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's order remanding the case to state court, holding the shipyard showed a causal nexus for the survival strict liability claims, and remanded for the district court to decide whether the shipyard has a colorable federal defense; the Savoie family lost on the remand ruling.
• Savoie v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court granted Owens-Illinois's re-urged exception of res judicata, holding the 1996 release barred the Savoie family's mesothelioma, wrongful death and survival claims against Owens-Illinois.
• Savoie v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). On remand from the Fifth Circuit, the court denied the plaintiffs' (Savoie family) motion to remand, finding Avondale (Huntington Ingalls) and the other defendants made a colorable government contractor defense, so federal officer removal stands.
• Savoie v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand to Louisiana state court, rejecting Avondale/Huntington Ingalls's federal officer removal, and denied the plaintiffs' request for sanctions.
• Sawyer v. Foster Wheeler LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2017). The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's remand order, holding Foster Wheeler met the federal officer removal requirements of § 1442(a)(1), and remanded for the district court to decide whether the removal notice was timely.
• Sawyer v. Union Carbide Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2019). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, barring Foster Wheeler's sophisticated user and superseding cause defenses; Foster Wheeler lost on both.
• Sawyer v. Union Carbide Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2018). The district court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion to remand, holding that Foster Wheeler's federal officer removal was timely, so the case stays in federal court.
• Sawyer v. Union Carbide Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2016). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to Baltimore City state court, finding Foster Wheeler failed to establish a colorable federal contractor defense or a causal nexus needed for federal officer removal.
• Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Knight (Georgia Supreme Court, 2016). The Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the judgment for Roy Knight and his wife against Scapa Dryer Fabrics, holding that admitting Dr. Abraham's causation testimony was an abuse of discretion.
• Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Knight (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2015). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict for Roy and Milva Knight against Scapa Dryer Fabrics, rejecting all of Scapa's challenges to the evidence, the expert testimony, the jury charges and the evidentiary rulings.
• Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Saville (Maryland Court of Appeals, 2011). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Mr. Saville against Scapa on causation, the cross-claim JNOV and the effect of his admissions, but reversed on bankruptcy trust offsets and remanded for discovery of the trust settlement agreements so the verdict could be reduced.