No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

U.S. District Court, District of Kansas: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 12 asbestos decisions from the U.S. District Court, District of Kansas (1982–2023). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

  • Kind of court: Federal district court

You don't need the product names or old records. No fee unless we recover compensation for your family.

Call 833-4-ASBESTOS Request a review

Decisions

  • Dickenson v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (2023). The magistrate judge granted Henkel's motion to compel production of Dickenson's settlement agreements with Pfizer, Barretts Minerals and any others, denied without prejudice the request for settlement communications, and declined to award expenses.
  • Dickenson v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (2022). The court granted plaintiff Dickenson's motion for limited jurisdictional discovery against defendant BSI, allowing written discovery and a short deposition for 60 days before he must respond to BSI's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
  • Little v. Budd Company (2019). The district court denied both the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and expenses under Rule 37(c)(2) and The Budd Company's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, leaving the jury verdict for the plaintiff in place.
  • Little v. Budd Co. (2018). The court denied Budd's motion for summary judgment on federal preemption of the state-law claims, granted it on the alternative negligence per se claim, and granted plaintiff's motion in part and denied it in part. It also struck a paragraph of Budd's president's declaration.
  • Little v. Budd Company (2018). The court denied Budd Company's motion to exclude Dr. Brody, granted in part and denied in part its motion to exclude Dr. Castleman (barring testimony about what Budd knew), and denied the motion on Dr. Frank as moot.
  • Little v. Budd Company (2018). The court denied The Budd Company's motion to amend and certify its two earlier orders on Federal Safety Appliance Act preemption for interlocutory appeal, so plaintiff Nancy Little prevailed on the motion.
  • Little v. the Budd Company (2018). The district court overruled The Budd Company's objection and affirmed the magistrate judge's order denying its motion to add a ninth expert witness and reopen discovery, so plaintiff Nancy Little prevailed on this motion.
  • Little v. the Budd Company (2018). The court denied The Budd Company's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, so plaintiff Nancy Little's state law claims and her alternative negligence per se claim proceed.
  • Harding v. Proko Industries, Inc. (1991). The court granted the plaintiff's motion and ruled that Texas law, not Kansas law with its 10-year statute of repose, governed the claims against Proko, Georgia-Pacific, National Gypsum and United States Gypsum.
  • Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1989). The court denied the summary judgment motions of defendants Celotex and Fibreboard, which argued the wrongful death action was barred by Kansas's ten-year provision, so plaintiff Mary Menne's claim could proceed.
  • Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1986). The court overruled the post-trial motions (JNOV, new trial, remittitur) of Celotex, Eagle-Picher, Fibreboard and Raymark, leaving in place the $2,500,000 jury verdict for plaintiff Menne, and explained that Nebraska law would adopt alternative liability.
  • Miller v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, refusing to bar Johns-Manville from disputing that its asbestos insulation was defective and unreasonably dangerous, so Johns-Manville prevailed on the motion.

Cite this page

“U.S. District Court, District of Kansas: Asbestos Cases.” AsbestosClaims.Law Library. https://asbestosclaims.law/library/cases/courts/u-s-district-court-district-of-kansas.

ACL Doc numbers and their short links never change. See how to cite the Library.

Talk with an asbestos lawyer

Start with what you remember, and we'll take it from there.

This page is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Every asbestos case turns on its own facts, exposure history, diagnosis, deadlines, available evidence, and applicable law. Reviewing this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your specific situation, call 833-4-ASBESTOS for a free case review.