585 results for “Owens-Corning Fiberglas”, page 27 of 30
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina · January 27, 2016 · in the opinion
Dandridge v. Crane Co. (2016)
…rule under maritime law that "a manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by, and owes no duty to warn of the hazards inherent in, asbestos products that the manufacturer did not manufacture or distribute." Conner…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama · August 30, 2013 · in the opinion
Morgan v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (2013)
…a manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by, and owes no duty to warn of the hazards inherent in, asbestos products that the manufacturer did not manufacture or distribute," such that defendants who made products…
-
Court case · Mississippi Supreme Court · June 5, 2014 · in the opinion
Union Carbide Corporation v. Nix (2014)
…industry, and warnings and safety. Ziegler is a petroleum engineer who owns a safety and petroleum consulting firm and a small oil company. He had worked in the drilling industry since he was fifteen years old…
-
Court case · Georgia Court of Appeals · March 30, 2015 · in the opinion
Scapa Dryer Fabrics, Inc. v. Knight (2015)
…support a recovery if the negligence of both be a contributing cause, even though one owes to the person injured a higher degree of care, and even though there be differing degrees of negligence by each…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of New Jersey · August 12, 2014 · in the opinion
In re GI Holdings, Inc. (2014)
…therefore conclude that plaintiff has a claim against defendant within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(4), and that defendant owes plaintiff a debt within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(11).
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · April 3, 2017 · in the opinion
Woo v. General Electric Company (2017)
…Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, a manufacturer owes a duty to warn of hazards for the use of a product that are or should be known to a manufacturer. Simonetta, 165 Wn.2d at 348. …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 19, 2018 · in the opinion
Melancon v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2018)
…F.3d at 173). Remand is proper when defendants can show only that the government owns the relevant vessels and fails to produce evidence that the government distributed safety procedures regarding use of asbestos. See Bartel…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · June 14, 2019 · in the opinion
Leavitt v. AO Smith Water Prods., Co. (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 …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · August 28, 2018 · in the opinion
Michel v. Ford Motor Company (2018)
…original diversity jurisdiction when complete diversity of citizenship exists between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 16, 2018 · in the opinion
Wittman v. Coty, Inc. (2018)
…that a particular exposure or series of exposures was a \legal cause' of his injury, i.e., a substantial factor in bringing about the injury." (Rutherford v. Owen-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 982…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 29, 2010 · in the opinion
McCann v. Foster Wheller, LLC (2010)
…status and location of the property is also a significant factor. If the property is owned by the same entity that owns the real property, this suggests that the property may be an improvement to real…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · July 16, 2019 · in the opinion
Shook v. Avon Products, Inc. (2019)
…litigation. See J&J Memorandum in Support of Motion to Fix Venue, ECF No. 1-5 at 17 ("Debtors claim that J&J owes them a duty to defend." (citing 1989 Agreement § 11 & 2011 Agreement ¶ 6))…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · August 12, 2010 · in the opinion
McGUFFIE v. Mead Corp. (2010)
…even one that owns all the stock of a subsidiary corporation\[,\] is not subject to liability for the acts of its subsidiary unless the parent so controls the operation of the subsidiary as to make it…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi · November 1, 2018 · in the opinion
Dickens v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair, Inc. (2018)
…GALE, PC. Perrigo Company, Defendant, represented by Ben F. Galloway, III, OWEN & GALLOWAY, PLLC, Jeffrey Jerome Hines, GOODELL, DEVRIES, LEECH & DANN, LLP, pro hac vice, Joe Sam Owen, OWEN, GALLOWAY & MYERS, PLLC, Michael A. Pichini, GOODELL…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · September 30, 2019 · in the opinion
In re Duro Dyne National Corp. (2019)
…court to solicit and consider additional nominees on its own initiative after one has been proposed. A bankruptcy court, however, owes no deference to the debtor's—or any other party's— nominee. See, e.g.…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 31, 2018 · in the opinion
Crozier v. Johnson & Johnson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2018)
…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, uses or possesses any real property situated within the state" (CPLR …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 15, 2018 · in the opinion
Polar-Mohr Maschinenvertriebsgesellschaft Gmbh, Co. KG v. Zurich American Insurance Company (2018)
…the policy period, including death at any time resulting therefrom." Id. at ZUR002026. Zurich also owes the policyholder a duty to defend, with defense costs covered in addition to the policy's limits. Id. at ZUR002027…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana · July 16, 2014 · in the opinion
Sarradet v. the Dow Chemical Company (2014)
…upon a corporate officer or employee for breaching a duty arising solely because of the employment relationship.\[16\] Those criteria are as follows: The principal or employer owes a duty of care to the third person…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · August 30, 2017 · in the opinion
Kivell v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)
…is a distinction between hazards that are inherent in a defendant's premises (for which a premises owner owes a duty) and hazards inherent in an independent contractor's job (for which a premises owner does…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama · February 25, 2019 · in the opinion
Smith v. Avon Products, Inc. (2019)
…determining whether a subsidiary corporation is a "mere instrumentality" of the parent corporation: (a) The parent corporation owns all or most of the capital stock of the subsidiary. (b) The parent and subsidiary corporations have common…