Asbestos Cases A–Z: S

338 decisions whose name begins with S.

• Silviano v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2024). The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a joint trial of the Last action with the Joyce action over the opposition of defendants Union Carbide, Mario & DiBono Plastering and Tishman Realty.
• Simmons v. City of New York (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2017). The court granted the City of New York, Warden Durante and Commissioner Ponte judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the pro se inmate's claims because he had not exhausted administrative remedies.
• Simmons v. Pacor, Inc. (Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1996). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court, which had upheld judgment n.o.v. for the defendants in Giffear and reversed the plaintiffs' verdicts in Simmons and Murray, so Owens-Illinois, Fibreboard and Keene prevailed over the three plaintiff couples.
• Simoneaux v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2023). The court granted Colgate-Palmolive (Mennen)'s motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim, granted J&J's motion as to punitive damages, and denied J&J's motion as to civil conspiracy, so the conspiracy claim against J&J proceeds.
• Simonetta v. Viad Corporation (Washington Supreme Court, 2008). The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and left in place the trial court's summary judgment for Viad Corporation, ruling against Joseph Simonetta on his negligence and strict liability failure-to-warn claims.
• Simpkins v. CSX Corp. (Illinois Appellate Court, 5th District, 2010). The appellate court reversed the trial court's section 2-615 dismissal of three counts against CSX and remanded, holding the plaintiff's complaint stated a duty owed by CSX's predecessor to the employee's wife.
• Simpkins v. CSX Transp., Inc. (Illinois Supreme Court, 2012). The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's reversal of the dismissal of the complaint against CSX Transportation on different grounds, held the complaint's duty allegations insufficient, and remanded so plaintiff could amend.
• Simpson v. American International Industries (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, 2023). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that the removal was procedurally proper and that the three Mississippi seller defendants were improperly joined, so the removing defendant American International Industries prevailed.
• Simpson v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1990). The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for Helen Simpson against Pittsburgh Corning, including $1,277,000 in compensatory damages and $2,300,000 in punitive damages.
• Singer v. Pneumo Abex, LLC. (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 1st District, 2012). The court reversed the judgment for Singer entered after a jury verdict and remanded with directions to grant Pneumo Abex's summary judgment motion, because the record did not show Pender was exposed to Abex's brake shoes.
• Sinyard v. Georgia Power Company (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2022). The court affirmed summary judgment for Georgia Power only as to work on the new Units at Plants Scherer and Vogtle, reversed it on the remaining Georgia Power claims and in full for Ford, and affirmed summary judgment for Piedmont Hospital.
• Sizemore v. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2019). The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims against Viking Pump without prejudice, which mooted Viking's pending summary judgment motion; Viking lost and the plaintiff prevailed.
• Skip Fordyce, Inc. v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (California Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, 2nd Division, 1983). The Court of Appeal annulled the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's death benefit award to Barry's widow because no substantial evidence showed Barry was exposed to asbestos at Skip Fordyce, and returned the case to the Board; Skip Fordyce and Fireman's Fund won, though the court upheld the finding that Fireman's Fund was the carrier.
• Slaughter v. Southern Talc Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1991). The Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment for Owens-Corning Fiberglas and remanded for trial, affirmed summary judgment for Southern Talc, and reinstated the order letting Mrs. Moran and Mrs. Green substitute for their deceased husbands.
• Slaughter v. Union Carbide Corp. (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 7th Division, 2007). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds and remanded, because the moving defendants had not shown that all defendants were subject to jurisdiction in Tennessee; the trial court may deny the motion or grant only a stay conditioned on waiver of Tennessee's statute of limitations.
• Sledz v. Flintkote Co. (U.S. District Court, District of Maryland, 2002). The court granted plaintiff Sledz's motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City because Flintkote's removal came more than one year after the action commenced, and denied his request for attorney's fees.
• Smalls v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2004). The Superior Court rejected John Crane's evidentiary challenges but held the $2,000,000 award to Oscar Smalls and $500,000 consortium award to Lizzie Smalls excessive, vacating the judgment and remanding for a new trial on damages only.
• Smargisso v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2024). The court denied Warren Pumps' evidentiary motions and the Warren and IMO causation motions, and granted defendants summary judgment on punitive damages, loss of consortium, pain and suffering, loss of future earnings and the design defect claims. It also granted plaintiffs summary judgment on the sophisticated user, sophisticated intermediary and superseding cause defenses, and denied both sides summary judgment on the government contractor defense to the failure to warn claims.
• Smeal v. Clark Equipment Company (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2022). The district court denied the summary judgment motions of Clark Equipment Company and Hyster-Yale Group, so the executrix's claims go forward on both exposure and causation.
• Smith v. 3M Company (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2019). The court granted summary judgment to Farmers Chemical Association and Schlage Lock Company and dismissed both from the wrongful death action brought by Dorothy Smith, the executrix of Julian Smith's estate.
• Smith v. 3M Company (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied Con Ed's motion for summary judgment, leaving plaintiffs' claims and the cross-claims against Con Ed in place, because a triable issue existed on whether Con Ed could have prevented Mr. Smith's injuries.
• Smith v. AC Light. & Elec. Supplies, LLC (New York Supreme Court, 2021). The trial court denied National Grid's motion for summary judgment, finding plaintiffs raised a triable issue on whether LILCO, to which National Grid is successor, controlled the decedent's work at Northport.
• Smith v. ACandS, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 1994). The Court of Appeal reversed the jury judgment, directed entry of judgment for ACandS, and remanded for a new trial against PG&E.
• Smith v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, 2019). The court denied defendant Ericsson, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on causation, finding that plaintiff's evidence and conflicting expert opinions raised fact issues for a jury.
• Smith v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2016). The court granted Honeywell's summary judgment motion on punitive damages and fraud, and denied it on the implied warranty, failure to warn and design defect claims, which go to trial with the negligence and wrongful death claims; Ms. Smith lost on punitive damages and fraud and won on the rest.
• Smith v. AO Smith Corp. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2022). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for Vanadium Enterprises Corporation, holding the record did not support successor liability for the decedent's former employers, and the executrix Kelly Smith lost.
• Smith v. AO Smith Water Prods. (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court treated Cleaver-Brooks' summary judgment motion as a motion to renew and denied it, finding a triable issue of fact on whether plaintiff Ernest Smith's disassembly of its boilers was a reasonably foreseeable use.
• Smith v. Avon Products, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama, 2019). The court granted the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Johnson & Johnson and the Imerys Defendants (Cyprus Amax Minerals and Cyprus Mines), so plaintiff Billie Smith's claims against them failed in this court.
• Smith v. AW Chesterton Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2014). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, so Crane Co.'s federal officer removal stood and the case stayed in federal court.
• Smith v. Beckman Coulter, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2023). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's order granting Dickinson College's petition to transfer the case from Philadelphia County to Cumberland County, ruling against plaintiffs Susan Smith and Christopher Weatherley.
• Smith v. Bell Aerospace (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 1987). The Appellate Division reversed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision discharging the Special Funds Conservation Committee from liability on the death claim, and sent the matter back to the Board, with costs against the Special Fund.
• Smith v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (Maryland Court of Appeals, 1985). The Court of Appeals of Maryland answered two certified questions: workers' compensation § 58 does not toll limitations until an award is made, and a later colon cancer claim can be a separate cause of action accruing on discovery if the cancer is a latent disease distinct from asbestosis. Appellee asbestos suppliers prevailed on the first question and the Smiths on the second.
• Smith v. Bmw OF North America LLC (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2014). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for Ford Motor Company and Borg-Warner Corporation, against the estate of Paul Rowland, represented by Amy Smith as executrix.
• Smith v. Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction, Inc. (Florida District Court of Appeal, 1st District, 2023). The First District Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment that the trial court had granted to Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction and remanded, ruling for the estate of Joan Smith.
• Smith v. Crane Co. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2014). The court granted Crane Co.'s and Ingersoll-Rand's motion to dismiss Diane Smith's loss of consortium claim (Count III), because she married Kenneth after his alleged asbestos exposure.
• Smith v. Ford Motor Company (U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2013). The district court granted Ford Motor Company's motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert, Dr. Samuel Hammar, finding his "every exposure" causation opinion inadmissible, which went against plaintiff Linda Smith.
• Smith v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2017). The court granted plaintiff Ronald Smith's motion to remand to Orleans Parish Civil District Court, finding removing defendant Honeywell had not shown that Louisiana defendant Taylor-Seidenbach was improperly joined; Honeywell lost on removal.
• Smith v. Illinois Central R. Co. (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, 2015). The appellate court reversed the judgment for plaintiff James Smith against Illinois Central Railroad and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court barred the railroad from presenting evidence of Smith's earlier work at the UNARCO asbestos plant.
• Smith v. Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc. (Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District, 2010). Affirmed the no-evidence summary judgment for Kelly-Moore Paint Company against the Smiths, because they offered no evidence of a minimum threshold dose of chrysotile that increases mesothelioma risk.
• Smith v. Pneumo Abex LLC (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal affirmed the verdict against Pneumo Abex but reversed the judgment because the trial court wrongly cut the medical-expense award, and it directed a new judgment for Mary Lou Smith of $440,107 plus $85,805.11 in costs.
• Smith v. Schlage Lock Company, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 2021). The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Schlage Lock Company and against Dorothy Smith, because there was no evidence Mr. Smith was exposed to asbestos at the plant and, in any event, Schlage Lock was not liable for exposure incident to an independent contractor's work.
• Smith v. Union Carbide Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The court granted Miriam Smith's unopposed motion for summary judgment, ruling that no liability can be found against settled party Taylor-Seidenbach, so the remaining defendants cannot reduce damages by Taylor's share of fault.
• Smith v. Union Carbide Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2014). The court granted in part the premises-owner defendants' (Union Carbide, Ethyl, Dow Chemical) summary judgment motions, dismissing vicarious-liability and strict-liability claims, but denied them on plaintiff Miriam Smith's direct negligence claims.
• Smith v. Union Carbide Corp. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2013). The federal district court denied Miriam Smith's motion to remand, finding the removal timely and not waived and Louisiana defendant Taylor-Seidenbach improperly joined, so the Removal Defendants (Dow, Ethyl, Union Carbide) prevailed.
• Smith v. Union Carbide Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court denied plaintiff Miriam Smith's motion in limine to exclude Union Carbide's expert, industrial hygienist William Dyson, so he may testify about Mr. Smith's estimated asbestos dose.
• Smith v. US (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1989). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of both of Dorothy Smith's suits against the United States for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling for the United States.
• Smith v. Wenerowicz (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2017). The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss: Smith's Eighth Amendment asbestos claim against Wenerowicz, Misstishin and Oppman went forward, while all claims against Drs. Malhotra and Wiener were dismissed.
• Snedeker v. Arvinmeritor, Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Broome, 2017). The trial court denied ArvinMeritor's (Rockwell's) motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and cross-claims, finding it had not met its initial burden and that material fact issues remained.
• Snoozy v. US Gypsum Co. (Florida District Court of Appeal, 3rd District, 1997). The appeals court reversed the denial of a new trial on the children's damages, ordering a new trial on that issue only, and affirmed the directed verdict removing the 75% fault the jury had assigned to unnamed "others", ruling against U.S. Gypsum on its cross-appeal.
• Snyder v. Ford Motor Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 3rd Appellate District, 2005). The appeals court affirmed the January 2004 order denying summary judgment to Rosemary Snyder and to Ford, reversed the May 2005 summary judgment for Ford, General Dynamics and the Administrator, and remanded for a determination of her right to participate in the workers' compensation fund.