56 results for “Owens-Illinois”, page 1 of 3
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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 · 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…
-
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 · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · April 18, 2019 · in the opinion
Rodrigue v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2019)
…for summary judgment, plaintiffs have either moved to dismiss or settled with the following defendants which were party to the Joint Defendants' motion: FMC Corporation,\[20\] Ingersoll-Rand Company,\[21\] McCarty Corporation,\[22\] Owens-Illinois, Inc.…
-
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 …
-
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…
-
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…
-
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 · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · May 20, 2021 · in the opinion
Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Toy Asbestos, 2021)
…exposed to asbestos from Defendant's products; and (2) this exposure was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Toy's injury and death. See Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 968-69 (Cal…
-
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…
-
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.
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 31, 2014 · in the opinion
Kent v. Warren Pumps, LLC (2014)
…the defendant (cause-in-fact) and that there is a reasonable medical probability that such exposure was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injury. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 30, 2021 · in the opinion
Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Asbestos, 2021)
…that the California Supreme Court has not yet determined whether an "every exposure" theory of liability is consistent with the substantial factor test that applies in asbestos cases. See Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · May 13, 2021 · in the opinion
Toy v. Warren Pumps (In re Asbestos, 2021)
…a substantial factor in causing Mr. Toy's injury and death. See McIndoe, 817 F.3d at 1174 (applying maritime law); see also Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal. 4th 953, 968-69 (Cal. 1997)…
-
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…
-
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.…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Colorado · March 19, 2019 · in the opinion
Mestas v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019)
…A trial is the appropriate means to determine what obligations, if any, each Defendant owes to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs have not shown that they cannot obtain complete relief from any Defendant without the absent parties. Second…