Asbestos Cases A–Z: W

183 decisions whose name begins with W.

• White v. Entergy Gulf States Louisiana (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 2014). The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's $3.8 million survival-action general damages award for the plaintiffs against Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, over a dissent that would have capped the award at $2.8 million.
• White v. Johns-Manville Corp. (Washington Supreme Court, 1985). The Washington Supreme Court answered the federal court's certified question yes, holding the discovery rule applies to wrongful death and survival actions, so the widow's claims against the asbestos defendants were not barred as a matter of law.
• White v. Johns-Manville Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1981). The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court's judgments n.o.v. and summary judgments for the asbestos manufacturers, held that admiralty jurisdiction applied, and remanded for a new trial under admiralty law, which favored the shipyard workers.
• White v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 1982). The court affirmed the trial court's award of permanent total disability workers' compensation benefits to Rayfield White, Sr. against Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, denying Johns-Manville's request for a remand.
• Whitehead v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, 2020). The district court granted summary judgment to Aurora Pump, Anchor Darling Valve, Fisher Controls, William Powell, Covil and Viking Pump, and dismissed the widow's claims against them for lack of evidence of sufficient exposure to their products.
• Whiting v. CBS Corporation (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2013). The Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment for defendants CBS Corporation and Crane Company against the plaintiff, the widow and executrix of Willis Whiting.
• Whitlock v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2008). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order granting the Whitlocks a new trial for juror misconduct after a defense verdict for Foster Wheeler, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Whitmire v. Ingersoll-Rand Company (California Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate District, 4th Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Bechtel against Barbara Whitmire and her late husband's claims, because plaintiffs raised no triable issue that Whitmire was exposed to asbestos attributable to Bechtel.
• Whitney v. Industrial Com'n (Illinois Appellate Court, 4th District, Industrial Commission Division, 1992). The appellate court affirmed the Industrial Commission's dismissal of Velda Whitney's death-benefits claim against C. Iber & Sons as untimely, because her husband had no disablement within three years of his last asbestos exposure.
• Wiacek v. 3M Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court granted North Safety Products' summary judgment motion on the breach of warranty and design defect claims and denied it on the failure to warn claim and the pleading-sufficiency challenge, so the failure to warn claim goes forward.
• Wilber v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (Iowa Supreme Court, 1991). The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment for the defendants (Owens-Corning and others) and remanded, holding the widow's mesothelioma suit was not time barred by the earlier asbestosis diagnosis.
• Wilde v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2015). The court granted Mary Jane Wilde's motion to remand to Louisiana state court, rejecting Avondale (Huntington Ingalls)'s federal officer removal because it failed to show the causal nexus to federal direction.
• Wilde v. Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2015). The Fifth Circuit denied Huntington Ingalls' motion to stay the district court's order remanding the asbestos case to Louisiana state court, so Wilde prevailed on the stay motion, without prejudice to the merits panel's review.
• Wilder v. Amatex Corp. (North Carolina Supreme Court, 1985). The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the summary judgments for Owens-Corning and for the other defendant appellees, ruling for plaintiff J.W. Wilder against Owens-Corning, Eagle-Picher, Pittsburgh Corning, Celotex, Keene and Starr-Davis.
• Wilgenbusch v. Metalclad Insulation LLC (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 2023). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Ronald and Judith Wilgenbusch, rejecting Metalclad Insulation's argument that its noneconomic damages should be limited to its own 7 percent share of fault under Proposition 51.
• Wilkerson v. Burlington Northern RR Company (Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, 1999). The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Burlington Northern and Illinois Central railroads, holding Wilkerson's FELA asbestos claims were time-barred; Wilkerson lost.
• Wille v. AC Product Liability Trust (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, 2007). The court denied the shipowner defendants' and the product defendants' (John Crane; Garlock Sealing, Anchor Packing and Coltec; A. W. Chesterton) motions for summary judgment, leaving the plaintiffs' mesothelioma claims for trial.
• Williams v. American Optical Corporation (Florida District Court of Appeal, 4th District, 2008). The appellate court reversed the trial courts' dismissals of the plaintiffs' asbestosis claims, holding the Florida Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act could not be applied to already-accrued claims, and remanded for further proceedings; plaintiffs won, defendants lost.
• Williams v. Avon Products, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, 2019). The magistrate judge recommended denying the Williamses' motion to remand, finding the Texas retailer Randall's was improperly joined, so removal to federal court on diversity grounds stood and Revlon and BMS prevailed.
• Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2012). The district court granted all defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice, ruling for BASF, Cahill Gordon and the individual defendants against the plaintiffs.
• Williams v. Boeing Company (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2022). The Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment for Boeing on the survival action and remanded, directed the district court to reconsider the plaintiffs' request for more discovery, and affirmed dismissal of the wrongful death claims as time-barred.
• Williams v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (North Carolina Court of Appeals, 2006). The Court of Appeals found no error in the trial and left in place the $7.5 million jury verdict for Williams's estate against CSX Transportation.
• Williams v. Flintkote Co. (Georgia Court of Appeals, 2002). The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Flintkote against Joyce and Carlton Williams, and dismissed the appeal as to GAF without prejudice because of GAF's bankruptcy stay.
• Williams v. Huntington Ingalls Industries (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2022). The court denied third-party defendant Amchem's motion for summary judgment on Avondale's and Mr. Bossier's contribution claims, finding genuine factual disputes about exposure to Amchem's 81-27 adhesive and its causal role.
• Williams v. JM Manufacturing Company, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 2nd Division, 2024). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Cornelius Williams (substituted by his brother Nathan as successor-in-interest) against J-M Manufacturing Company, rejecting its arguments for a defense judgment or new trial.
• Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corporation (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2021). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for Lockheed Martin, holding that federal officer removal was proper, the discovery orders were not an abuse of discretion, summary judgment was correct, and the $10,000 sanction against plaintiffs' attorney stood.
• Williams v. Placid Oil Company (Louisiana Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, 2017). The court affirmed in all respects the bench-trial judgment for the Williams family against Ingersoll-Rand, including the liability findings, fault allocations and damage awards, and assessed costs to Ingersoll-Rand.
• Williams v. Rust Engineering & Construction Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2016). The court granted Fiat Chrysler N.V.'s (successor to Fiat S.p.A.) unopposed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the claims against it without prejudice; the Williams plaintiffs lost as to Fiat.
• Williams v. Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (Kentucky Court of Appeals, 2023). The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Square D and Union Carbide on the ground that they owed Vickie Williams no duty, vacated the order excluding the plaintiffs' expert's talc opinions, and affirmed the denial of Square D's workers' compensation exclusivity defense, remanding for further proceedings.
• Williams v. Seidenbach (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2021). The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for McCarty Corporation and Taylor Seidenbach, Inc. against the Williams children, after finding the case was properly removed and that no evidence tied either defendant's products to Williams' exposure.
• Williams v. Seidenbach (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2020). The en banc Fifth Circuit held that the district court validly entered partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) for Taylor Seidenbach and McCarty, so the Williamses' appeal could proceed, and returned the cases to the panel for a ruling on the merits.
• Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2020). The en banc Fifth Circuit held that the district court properly entered partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) for Taylor Seidenbach and McCarty after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the remaining defendants, so appellate jurisdiction existed, and returned the appeals to the panel to decide the merits.
• Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2019). The Fifth Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, so Taylor-Seidenbach and McCarty kept the MDL court's summary judgment; a later Rule 54(b) judgment did not cure the finality defect.
• Williams v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Incorporated (U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2018). The Fifth Circuit dismissed the Williams children's consolidated appeals against Taylor-Seidenbach, McCarty, Boeing and Lockheed Martin for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the district court never entered a final decision, so the defendants prevailed on the jurisdictional point.
• Williams v. the Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack OF California (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2018). The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's rulings for Pep Boys that the wrongful death claims were time-barred and that punitive damages were not shown, but reversed the judgment because the trial court failed to award damages for home health care provided before the decedent's death and wrongly awarded Pep Boys expert fees under section 998, and remanded.
• Williamson v. Plant Insulation Co. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 3rd Division, 1994). The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for the Williamson plaintiffs against Plant Insulation only as to the decedent's noneconomic damages and anticipated economic damages, remanded for a limited new trial on economic damages, and otherwise affirmed, including the finding that the asbestosis claim was timely.
• Willis v. Buffalo Pumps Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2014). The court denied John Crane Inc.'s motion for summary judgment against Viola Willis on real-party-in-interest, causation and punitive damages grounds, leaving the claims for trial, and rejected its public policy argument as premature.
• Willis v. Buffalo Pumps Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2014). The court granted Foster Wheeler summary judgment only on the plaintiff's false representation claim and denied its motion on all other claims, including exposure, causation, government contractor defense, sophisticated user defense, intentional failure to warn and punitive damages.
• Willis v. Buffalo Pumps Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2014). The court denied Metalclad's summary judgment motion on causation because fact disputes existed, but granted it on punitive damages, dismissing that claim in favor of Metalclad; the remaining claims by Viola Willis proceed.
• Willis v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2013). The district court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand, holding the defendant pump and equipment makers properly removed the cases under the federal officer removal statute because they raised a colorable government contractor defense.
• Willis v. BW IP International Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2011). The court denied the motions for summary judgment of Foster Wheeler, CBS Corp. (Westinghouse) and Crane Co. on the government contractor defense, finding genuine disputes of material fact, so plaintiff Tina Willis prevailed on the motions.
• Wilson v. 3M Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The trial court denied summary judgment motions by American Insulated Wire Corporation and Leviton Manufacturing Co., leaving the plaintiffs' claims against both defendants to proceed.
• Wilson v. 3M Company (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court granted Belden Wire and Cable's motion to renew but, on renewal, again denied Belden's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's claim against Belden continues.
• Wilson v. AC&S, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, 2015). The federal magistrate judge granted Westinghouse's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff Rorie Wilson, finding no evidence that its arc chutes released asbestos fibers at levels that caused his disease, and denied as moot a motion to limit another expert's testimony.
• Wilson v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (Pennsylvania Superior Court, 2002). The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Flintkote Co. against the administratrix of Dolly Chase's estate, finding no sufficient evidence that she was exposed to Flintkote Fibrex Cement.
• Wilson v. Certainteed Corporation (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 1st Division, 2010). The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for CertainTeed Corporation, finding no triable issue that Donald Wilson was exposed to asbestos bound for CertainTeed, so the Wilson family lost.
• Wilson v. Ham (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 2024). A magistrate judge granted Wilson leave to file a second amended complaint and recommended dismissing his § 1983 claims against Dr. Ham, Warden Fleischman, Sheriff Smith and Dr. Gore in his official capacity, and the reimbursement claim, while letting the medical-indifference claim against Dr. Gore individually go forward.
• Wilson v. John Crane, Inc. (Maryland Court of Appeals, 2005). The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the Court of Special Appeals, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Garlock leave to withdraw its deemed admissions, so the plaintiffs kept the verdict for now, and it remanded for the intermediate court to decide the remaining issues.
• Wilson v. John Crane, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate District, 4th Division, 2000). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiffs Daniel and Lois Wilson against John Crane, Inc., rejecting both John Crane's challenges and the plaintiffs' cross-appeal over the limit on noneconomic damages.
• Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1982). The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment for Johns-Manville and the other asbestos defendants, which had dismissed Blannie Wilson's survival and wrongful death claims as time-barred, and remanded for further proceedings.