Asbestos Cases A–Z: V

70 decisions whose name begins with V.

• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2019). The court denied the plaintiffs' renewed motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court against Foster Wheeler, Buffalo Pumps (Air & Liquid Systems), Calaveras, GE and the other defendants.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2019). The court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint over Foster Wheeler's objection, and directed plaintiffs to file it by May 31, 2019.
• Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2019). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that Foster Wheeler and Air & Liquid Systems (successor to Buffalo Pumps) properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute.
• Viale v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2021). The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Foster Wheeler and Exxon Mobil, rejecting the claims of Debbie Viale and Amber Jacobs for lack of evidence of exposure to Foster Wheeler products or Exxon-caused exposure.
• Vickroy v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois, 2011). The court granted Debra Vickroy's motion and remanded the case to the Madison County, Illinois circuit court, rejecting General Electric's federal officer removal for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
• Viera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, 2016). The court granted BASF's partial motion to dismiss (joined by Superior and Whittaker), dismissing the plaintiff's misrepresentation and concerted-acts claims without prejudice and allowing her 14 days to file a second amended complaint.
• Viera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2015). The district court granted the defendants' (BASF, Superior Materials and Whittaker, Clark & Daniels) motion to transfer the widow's wrongful death action from the Southern District of New York to the Middle District of Florida over plaintiff Viera's objection.
• Viereck v. Fibreboard Corp. (Washington Court of Appeals, 1st Division, 1996). The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on the jury verdict for Virgil Viereck's estate and his wife Julia Viereck against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, holding that pre-WPLA law applied and that the evidentiary rulings were within the trial court's discretion.
• Vigiolto v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, 1986). The federal district court granted summary judgment to the asbestos manufacturer defendants because the plaintiff, the widow, could not identify which manufacturer's products her husband was exposed to, and market share and enterprise liability did not apply.
• Viglietta v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (New York Supreme Court, Erie, 2022). The court denied defendant Hedman Resources Limited's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, leaving the plaintiffs' jury verdict undisturbed.
• Viking Pump, Inc. v. Century Indemnity Company (Delaware Court of Chancery, 2009). The court granted summary judgment to Viking Pump and Warren Pumps, holding they may exercise the insured's rights under Houdaille's excess policies and that liability is allocated on an all-sums basis, and denied the Excess Insurers' cross-motions.
• Vince v. Crane Co. (Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th Appellate District, 2007). The appeals court affirmed summary judgments for Crane Company and Goodyear Tire & Rubber against the estate of Nathalie Vince, and dismissed Owens-Illinois from the appeal because it had settled with the estate.
• Vinson v. Armstrong International, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2021). The court granted summary judgment to Fisher Controls, Covil and ViacomCBS (as successor to Westinghouse) and dismissed the claims against them, and denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment motions against Covil and Daniel International.
• Viola v. Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. (Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2013). The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Wisconsin Electric Power Co. on the Viola plaintiffs' Safe Place claim and remanded for trial.
• Vitale v. Burnham, LLC (Maryland Court of Special Appeals, 2018). The Court of Special Appeals vacated the summary judgment for Burnham and Weil-McLain and the denial of reconsideration, and remanded for further proceedings, ruling for the Vitale family on whether the boilers were asbestos-containing products.
• Vitcavich v. Owens Corning/fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2023). The Superior Court affirmed summary judgment for the Owens Corning/Fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust and its trustees, holding the estates' claims untimely and rejecting their procedural challenges.
• Vocciante v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware, 2020). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Air & Liquid Systems Corp. and Flowserve US, Inc. against the plaintiffs, because the plaintiffs could not show that either defendant's products were a substantial factor in causing Mr. Vocciante's mesothelioma.
• Vodanovich v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 2004). The appeals court affirmed summary judgment for Sank, Inc. (formerly Buck Kreihs Co.) and Dixie Machine Welding and Metal Works, dismissing the wrongful death claim of the longshoreman's estate for lack of proof of exposure.
• Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Jones (Florida District Court of Appeal, 2nd District, 2017). The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of Volkswagen AG's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, because Mrs. Jones did not show minimum contacts with Florida, and remanded for the trial court to consider her motion to compel jurisdictional discovery.
• Vos v. Calhoon (California Court of Appeal, 3rd Appellate District, 2014). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment dismissing Vos's action against his real estate agent Kenneth Calhoon and Golden West Real Estate, Inc., because Vos did not provide an adequate appellate record to show the demurrer was wrongly sustained.