Asbestos Cases A–Z: S

338 decisions whose name begins with S.

• Servedio v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for joint trials, joining fifteen New York asbestos actions into six groups of two or three cases each, over the defendants' opposition.
• Settlemyer v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2021). The court granted the defendants' motions to exclude the specific-causation opinions of plaintiffs' experts Dr. Holstein and Dr. Staggs, and largely denied the plaintiffs' motion to exclude the defendants' experts.
• Settlemyer v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2021). The court granted summary judgment to Eaton, BWDAC, ZF Active Safety US, PACCAR and Daimler Trucks North America and dismissed the Settlemyers' claims against them with prejudice.
• Settlemyer v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, 2021). The magistrate judge denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction to give corporate deposition dates (without prejudice, as premature) and to respond to Requests for Production 10, 12 and 13 (as overly broad), and denied the remaining issues as moot.
• Seymoure v. AO Smith Water Products Company (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 2016). The appellate court reversed the trial court's order denying Union Carbide's request for a protective order over its employees' workers' compensation medical records and remanded for a more protective order, siding with Union Carbide over plaintiff Seymoure.
• Shaffer v. AW Chesterton Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 9th Appellate District, 2019). The appeals court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for U.S. Steel on the Shaffers' Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims and remanded for further proceedings, in favor of Diane Shaffer and her husband's estate.
• Shamir v. Agilent Technologies, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2010). The court granted Hewlett-Packard and Agilent's motion to dismiss, holding the widow's tort claim barred by the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act, and denied her request for more discovery as moot.
• Shanahan v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2019). The First Department affirmed the denial of Algoma Hardwoods' motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Michelle Shanahan's claims against Algoma continue.
• Shanahan v. Kolmar Laboratories, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2019). The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand to New York state court, finding Johnson & Johnson had not shown Kolmar was fraudulently joined, and denied Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees.
• Sharp v. Afc-Holcroft (Rhode Island Superior Court, 2010). The Superior Court denied Kentile Floors' motion for summary judgment, holding the statute of repose in G.L. § 9-1-29 did not protect Kentile as a passive manufacturer, so the plaintiffs' suit against it could continue.
• Sharpless v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1997). The trial court granted compulsory nonsuits for defendants Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Uniroyal and Harbison Walker Refractories against plaintiffs Dallas Sharpless and Richard Wilson, and issued this opinion explaining the nonsuits for their appeals.
• Shaw v. Andritz Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2016). The magistrate judge granted the Shaws' motion to apply Connecticut substantive law and denied the defendants' motion to apply maritime law, because the locality test was not met.
• Shearer v. AW Chesterton Company (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2015). The court granted summary judgment to General Electric under the bare metal defense, and granted A.W. Chesterton's and Westinghouse's unopposed motions, against plaintiffs Shearer and his wife.
• Sheets v. Ford Motor Co. (Kentucky Supreme Court, 2021). The Kentucky Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded to the trial court, holding that neither appellate court had jurisdiction over Ford's interlocutory appeal of the denial of summary judgment on up-the-ladder immunity, so Sheets's estate prevailed on the jurisdiction question.
• Sheldon v. Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, 2021). The court denied plaintiff Pamela Sheldon's motion to remand to state court, ruling that adding Oregon defendant Murphy did not destroy complete diversity, so Cleaver-Brooks kept the case in federal court; it also granted Cleaver-Brooks leave to file a sur-reply.
• Shelhamer v. Crane (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2012). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's order granting Margaret Shelhamer a new trial against John Crane, Inc., and reinstated the judgment, so Crane won and Shelhamer lost.
• Shellenberger v. Kreider Farms (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2023). The Superior Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Kreider Farms (the employers) and remanded for further proceedings, in favor of the Shellenberger estate.
• Shelly v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1986). The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal of the intentional-tort theory but reversed the judgment on the pleadings for Raymark and remanded, because the plaintiffs' allegations of exposure away from the workplace stated a claim under the dual capacity exception.
• Shelton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2022). The court granted the defendants' joint motion to strike the specific-causation opinions of the plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Edwin Holstein, because they lacked a sufficient foundation under federal maritime law.
• Shelton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2021). The court granted defendant Superior Lidgerwood Mundy Corporation's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, with leave to amend, and granted plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery.
• Sheppard v. AC & S. Co. (Delaware Superior Court, 1985). The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion on the statute of limitations as to Sheppard's pleural thickening claim, and denied it as to his pulmonary asbestosis claim, so he lost on one claim and won on the other.
• Sheppard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court denied Sheppard's motions to exclude settlement and collateral-source evidence, for in limine relief on undeposed experts, for judicial admission on asbestosis, and to exclude the Dr. Smith consultation note, and denied as moot his motion to strike a witness and the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on asbestosis.
• Sheppard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court granted the defendants' motion and excluded plaintiff Sheppard's treating physicians from giving expert opinion testimony, because he did not make the required Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosures; the physicians may offer only lay testimony.
• Sheppard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court granted Liberty Mutual Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff Sheppard's claims against it in its individual capacity because it owed him no duty.
• Sheppard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court granted Mosaic Global Holdings' motion to dismiss Sheppard's amended fraud claim with prejudice for failure to plead fraud with particularity, and denied Mosaic's motion to strike as moot.
• Sheppard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court denied Jesse Frank Sheppard's second motion to remand to Louisiana state court and struck his amendments deleting the Caminada allegations, so Mosaic and the other defendants kept the case in federal court.
• Sheppard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2016). The court denied plaintiff Jesse Frank Sheppard's motion to remand, holding that federal jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act was proper, so defendants including Mosaic kept the case in federal court.
• Sheppard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2016). The court granted Mosaic Global Holdings' motion to dismiss Sheppard's fraud claim against it under Rule 9(b), without prejudice and with leave to amend within twenty-one days.
• Sheppard v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2016). The district court denied Sheppard's appeal and let stand the magistrate judge's order refusing him leave to amend his complaint to drop the Caminada facility allegations, finding the amendment futile and made in bad faith.
• Sherin v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2015). The district court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand the remaining claims against Union Carbide and A.W. Chesterton to Baltimore City Circuit Court, retaining supplemental jurisdiction, so Union Carbide prevailed on the motion.
• Sherin v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2014). The court denied Union Carbide's motion in limine and its summary judgment motion on product identification, exposure and causation, but granted summary judgment to Union Carbide on the duty-to-warn claim and on the unopposed warranty, fraud, conspiracy, aiding and abetting and punitive damages claims.
• Shields v. General Electric Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2020). The court granted summary judgment to Wabtec, General Electric and CBS (successor to Westinghouse) because the Locomotive Inspection Act preempted Martin Shields's negligence, wrongful death and survival claims, and entered judgment against the plaintiff on all counts.
• Shields v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2012). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgments on the pleadings for Hennessy Industries and remanded, holding the plaintiffs' brake-grinding-machine negligence and strict liability claims were sufficient to proceed.
• Shiffer v. CBS Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2015). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for CBS Corporation (successor to Westinghouse) against plaintiffs James Shiffer and his wife, and upheld denial of their motions for reconsideration and a new trial.
• Shipley v. Hoke (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 2014). The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the judgment creditor's enforcement motions against Hoke, Shine and Cooney & Conway: Hoke and Shine won on the affirmative defense that the supplementary proceedings had terminated, and Cooney won because the court had no personal jurisdiction over it.
• Sholtis v. American Cyanamid Co. (New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, 1989). The Appellate Division held the trial judge erred in refusing the plaintiffs' supplemental proofs, reinstated the claims against Porter Hayden, remanded the claims against the other Wellington defendants for reconsideration under new exposure standards, and affirmed summary judgment for John Crane.
• Shonkwiler v. AW Chesterton Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2017). The court granted the Shonkwilers' motion to remand to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, after dismissing Westinghouse and Warren Pumps, leaving only state law claims.
• Shook v. Avon Products, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended granting plaintiff Shook's motion to remand to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, rejecting Johnson & Johnson's bankruptcy "related to" removal, and denying her motion for hearing as moot.
• Short v. Honeywell International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted DuPont's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed Reginald Short's Price-Anderson Act claim against DuPont with prejudice, because asbestos is not radioactive material.
• Short v. Sequoia Ventures, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Sequoia Ventures (successor to Bechtel) against the Short family because they offered no expert evidence of the standard of care for designing and building the power plant.
• Shtockhammer v. 29th Street Hotel Acquisition, LLC (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied the motion to dismiss by the current property owner (Acquisition) and, without prejudice to renewal after discovery, by Mezz, Hotel and JCMC, but granted it for Chetrit Group, which had never held any interest, so plaintiff Shtockhammer's claims continued against the others.
• Shulman v. Brenntag N. AM., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court denied Johnson & Johnson's motion to preclude plaintiffs' expert Dr. Gordon's testimony on destructive testing of Ms. Shulman's pathology blocks, and ordered limited post-note-of-issue expert depositions of both sides' experts on that testing.
• Shulman v. Brenntag N. AM., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court granted Imerys Talc America and Cyprus Amax Minerals summary judgment only for the 1977-1979 exposure period, which plaintiff did not contest, and denied it for 1980-2011 and on punitive damages, so plaintiff Shulman's remaining claims go forward.
• Shulman v. Brenntag N. AM., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The trial court granted Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. summary judgment only on the express warranty claims and denied the rest of their motion, so plaintiffs Shulman and Krutkovich's negligence, strict liability, punitive damages and implied warranty claims remain for trial.
• Shuman v. United States (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 1985). The First Circuit reversed the district court's judgment for plaintiff Edythe Shuman, holding that the United States was not liable because the discretionary function exception of the FTCA barred the claim.
• Siders v. 20th Century Glove Corporation OF Texas (U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, 2016). The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand and sent the case back to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, rejecting General Electric's federal officer removal.
• Sides v. Advance Auto Parts Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2023). The court granted Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims against it, because plaintiff's evidence did not identify any Mercedes-Benz product; the case continued against the other defendants.
• Signal Mutual Indemnity Association, Ltd. v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, 2017). The court granted the Port of Greater Baton Rouge's motion and dismissed without prejudice the claims of Signal Mutual and Baton Rouge Marine Contractors for lack of admiralty subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Silver v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1986). The Fourth Circuit reversed the summary judgment for the asbestos product defendants and remanded, holding the North Carolina statute of repose did not bar the executrix's wrongful death claim.
• Silvestro v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 8th Division, 2009). The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury's finding that Kaiser Gypsum's joint compound was a substantial factor in causing Silvestro's mesothelioma, reversed the jury's 30 percent fault allocation to Kaiser Gypsum, and remanded the case, so the plaintiffs won on liability and Kaiser Gypsum won on allocation.