8 results for “Owens-Illinois”
-
Court case · California Supreme Court · August 28, 1997
Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997)
…new trial for Owens-Illinois. It held that the burden-shifting instruction was error but harmless, and that the tobacco company defense issue was controlled by Richards, so the plaintiffs' judgment against Owens-Illinois was not…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 17, 1995
Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1995)
…upholding the jury's findings that Owens-Illinois's Kaylo insulation was defective and was 100 percent responsible, and holding that Owens-Illinois waived its claim to allocate fault to the Navy. A product such as…
-
Court case · Missouri Supreme Court · September 10, 1991
Hagen v. Celotex Corp. (1991)
…directing judgment for Owens-Illinois and remanding for a new trial against Fibreboard because the plaintiffs' proof of causation was insufficient. A plaintiff must show through expert testimony that each defendant's product was a substantial…
-
Court case · Iowa Supreme Court · January 19, 1994 · in the opinion
Spaur v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1994)
…products. From 1953-58 OCF distributed Kaylo, an asbestos-containing pipe covering and block insulation product manufactured by Owens-Illinois. In 1958 OCF began manufacturing and distributing Kaylo and continued to do so until late 1972…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 8, 1998 · in the opinion
Ford Motor v. Wood (1998)
In Owens-Illinois v. Armstrong, 326 Md. 107, 604 A.2d 47, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 871, 113 S.Ct. 204, 121 L.Ed.2d 145 (1992) (hereinafter Armstrong II), the Court of Appeals first…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · August 17, 1998 · in the opinion
Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1998)
…Pittsburgh Corning contends, inter alia, that such accrual date is too early; plaintiffs in their cross-appeal contend it is too late. In Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Estate of Burt, 897 S.W.2d 765 (Tex…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · May 26, 1992
Rohrbaugh v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1992)
The Tenth Circuit vacated the judgment for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning and Celotex because the jury instructions wrongly imposed a duty to warn Mrs. Palmer, and remanded for a new trial, so the defendants prevailed…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 4, 1999 · in the opinion
Ehret v. Congoleum Corp. (1999)
…its motion for new trial. At the August 22 hearing, the court and counsel discussed Buttram v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp: (1997) 16 Cal.4th 520, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 438, 941 P.2d 71 (Buttram)…