12 results for “Owens-Illinois”
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · February 22, 2022 · in the opinion
Budd v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2022)
…compound. Given the differences between smoking an addictive substance and using a particular product in the course of employment, we reject this contention. See Raney v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 897 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 21, 2021 · in the opinion
Ann Strobel v. Johnson & Johnson (2021)
…25 Cal.4th at p. 850), which here is the preponderance of the evidence (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 965 (Rutherford)). "\On appeal "\[w\]e review a grant of summary judgment…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 25, 2021 · in the opinion
Putt v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2021)
…subd. (a); Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 958 (Rutherford).) "\[I\]f supported by the evidence," a jury must apportion fault against parties and nonparties found responsible for the plaintiff's injury…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 13, 2021 · in the opinion
Vanni v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2021)
…factor in contributing to the aggregate dose of asbestos the plaintiff or decedent inhaled or ingested, and hence to the risk of developing asbestos-related cancer." (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 26, 2021 · in the opinion
Toy v. Honeywell Int'l (In re Asbestos, 2021)
…ago. See, e.g., Brodkin Report at 64. Defendant first cites to the California Supreme Court's opinion in Rutherford v. Owens Illinois, Inc., regarding the proof of causation required in asbestos-related cases. 16 Cal…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 31, 2023 · in the opinion
Elorreaga v. Rockwell Automation, Inc. (2023)
…CV-00325-HSG, 2021 WL 1167638, at [\5] (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2021) (quoting Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 958, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 941 P.2d 1203 (Cal. 1997)…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2021 · in the opinion
Phipps v. Copeland Corporation LLC (2021)
…was a substantial factor causing the illness by showing that in reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor contributing to the plaintiff's or decedent's risk of developing cancer." (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 29, 2024 · in the opinion
Watts v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (2024)
…no evidence of sufficient sustainability to support the claim or defense of the party opposing the motion...." (Howard v. Owens Corning (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 621, 629-630 \[85 Cal.Rptr.2d 386\].) "On appeal…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 19, 2020 · in the opinion
Mata v. Liberty Utilities (park Water) Corp. (2020)
…2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 292, 332.) III. Section 3294 Punitive damages serve the dual public purposes of punishment and deterrence. (Stevens v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1645, 1658; see § 3294…
-
Medical study · Medical research · 2021
Functionalized Scintillating Nanotubes for Simultaneous Radio- and Photodynamic Therapy of Cancer
…of delivered doses comparable to the one employed in clinical treatments. This opens the possibility of effectively reducing the therapy exposure and consequently undesired collateral effects due to prolonged exposure of patients to high-energy radiation.
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · September 16, 2024 · in the opinion
Sorrentino v. Ammco Tools, Inc. (2024)
…industry custom or feasibility of design can be considered when the plaintiff opens the door by "present\[ing\] evidence that puts in issue the custom of the industry or feasibility of alternative design" as "the defendant…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · July 13, 2022 · in the opinion
Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (2022)
…user is later injured. See Davis, 975 F.2d at 173 (noting that "no Louisiana case has clearly addressed the issue" of whether a "product manufacturer owes \[a\] duty to the employee\[s\] of a purchaser. . …