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

Search

47 results for “Owens-Illinois”, page 1 of 3

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois · February 25, 2020

    Hicks v. Ford Motor Company (2020)

    …may be treated as fraudulently joined when procedural rules (waiver, and Illinois limits on reconsideration with late evidence) leave no reasonable possibility of reinstating the claim; the common-defense exception does not apply where the reason…

  2. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit · July 16, 2020

    Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc. (2020)

    Charles Corley and his wife Myra sued dozens of companies that allegedly supplied asbestos-containing products that caused his malignant mesothelioma. The opinion says he used the products in the Navy and later as a self-employed mechanic and…

  3. Court case · Michigan Court of Appeals · January 13, 1998 · in the opinion

    Beaudrie v. Anchor Packing Co. (1998)

    …Inc., John Johnson Company, Keene Corporation, M.H. Detrick Company, Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, Owens-Illinois, Inc., Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation, Raymark Industries and Standard Fuel Engineering Company, Defendants, and Silicosis and Dust Disease Fund and Detroit…

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · California Court of Appeal · December 23, 2022 · in the opinion

    Bader v. Johnson & Johnson (2022)

    …with negligence, product liability, and concealment instructions that incorporated the asbestos-specific standard of proof for causation set forth in Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953 \[67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 941…

  6. Court case · Michigan Supreme Court · July 25, 2007 · in the opinion

    In re Certified Question From the Fourteenth District Court OF Appeals OF Texas (2007)

    …supra at 233. The court held that because there was no relationship between the defendant and the defendant's employee's wife, no duty could be imposed. In Adams v Owens-Illinois, Inc, 119 Md App…

  7. 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…

  8. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 11, 2018 · in the opinion

    Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Coates (2018)

    …a negligent failure to warn action." May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., 446 Md. 1, 25 n.22 (2015) (citation omitted). In Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia, supra, the Court noted that Professors Henderson and Twerski …

  9. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · January 10, 2013 · in the opinion

    Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer (2013)

    …Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162-63 (4th Cir.1986) (upholding Maryland's substantial contributing factor standard in an asbestosis case); Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 941…

  10. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 28, 2019 · in the opinion

    Berg v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (2019)

    …on "a cause of action for asbestos-related latent injuries, the plaintiff must first establish some threshold exposure to the defendant's defective asbestos-containing products." (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953…

  11. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 8, 2016 · in the opinion

    Lepore v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (2016)

    …McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1103 (McGonnell); see Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 976-977.) Direct evidence of exposure is not required; rather, the plaintiff…

  12. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 5, 2017 · in the opinion

    Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company (2017)

    …exposed to asbestos-containing products from the Rossmoor project with such frequency, regularity, and proximity as to satisfy the causation standard articulated in Rutherford \[v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953 (Rutherford)\], Hernandez \[v…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 25, 2017 · in the opinion

    Alfaro v. Imerys Talc America Inc. (2017)

    …would need to establish that this exposure was to a reasonable medical probability a substantial factor in contributing to any asbestos-related disease she suffered. (See Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953…

  14. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 14, 2003 · in the opinion

    Cossman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2003)

    …asbestos products in Indiana and California. He contends that the trial court erroneously split the cause of action into California and Indiana components, contrary to statements by our Supreme Court in Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

  15. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · October 24, 2002 · in the opinion

    Vaughn v. Ford Motor Co. (2002)

    …its discretion. TransAmerican Natural Gas Corporation v. Powell, supra. Reversible Error, Directed Verdict, and Illinois Law Having found error, we must next determine if the error is reversible. TEX. R.APP.P. 44.1. An error…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · October 31, 2008 · in the opinion

    Kummer v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2008)

    …has been adopted by a majority of federal jurisdictions and many state courts, Robertson; Jones v. Ownes-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712 (4th Cir.1995)(applying North Carolina law); Slaughter v. Southern Talc Co.…

  17. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · November 6, 2001

    Allied Signal, Inc. v. Herring (2001)

    Loyd Herring worked for Cummins Engine Company in Columbus, Indiana, from 1942 until he retired in 1978, and the opinion says he was exposed there to various forms of asbestos and asbestos-containing products. He was diagnosed with malignant…

  18. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · August 28, 2024 · in the opinion

    Day v. 3M Company Inc. (2024)

    …2003). Ultimately, "a jury is free to accept or to reject expert testimony in whole or in part or to accord it what probative value the jury deems appropriate." Owens v. Silvia, 838 A.2d 881…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · February 25, 2022 · in the opinion

    Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022)

    …in a manner that could not reasonably be foreseen by the defendant" bars recovery where such misuse proximately caused the injury. Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712, 721 n.14 (4th Cir…

  20. Court case · New York Supreme Court · March 11, 2011 · in the opinion

    Tedrick v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of Nyc Asbestos Litig., 2011)

    …the "first exposure" rule originating with Schmidt v Merchants Despatch Transp. Co. (270 NY 287 \[1936\]) and its progeny (e.g. Consorti v Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 86 NY2d 449 \[1995\]; Blanco v American Tel. & Tel…