Search

• Decade: 2010s ×
• Organization: Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. ×
• Clear filters

6 results for “Owens-Corning Fiberglas”

1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 1, 2014 · in the opinion

   Collin v. Calportland Company (2014)

   …Formosa liken this case to Hunter, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th 1282 and Dumin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 650 (Dumin). There is no fair comparison. The plaintiff in Hunter testified…

2. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · October 24, 2012 · in the opinion

   Rich v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2012)

   …determined that "predecessor in interest" does not require privity. See, e.g., Horne v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., 4 F.3d 276, 283 (4th Cir. 1993) ("\[P\]rivity is not the gravamen of the analysis. Instead…

3. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · June 22, 2017 · in the opinion

   Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (2017)

   …of punitive damages. This Court has previously granted Georgia-Pacific summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages in a similar asbestos action, Covington v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., No. GLR-12-461, 2014 WL 12661857…

4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Central District of California · February 12, 2013 · in the opinion

   Nelson v. Air and Liquid Systems Corp. (2013)

   …Gypsum Co., 98 Cal. App.4th 1098, 1103, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 (2002) (citations omitted) (citing Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953, 975-76, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 941 P.2d…

5. Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 8, 2011 · in the opinion

   Saffold v. Bondex International, Inc. (2011)

   …before damages can be allotted to it." (Wilson v. Ritto (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 361, 369; Sparks v Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 461, 478 \[defendant manufacturer of asbestos-containing product "undisputedly…

6. Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 24, 2019 · in the opinion

   Godfrey v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2019)

   …ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce; or (4) owns or possesses any real property situated within the state. (CPLR …