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

Search

10 results for “Owens-Illinois”

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 18, 2015 · in the opinion

    Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2015)

    …and a reasonable medical probability that a particular exposure or series of exposures was a substantial factor in bringing about the risk of the alleged injuries. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 18, 2015 · in the opinion

    Greenberg v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2015)

    …and a reasonable medical probability that a particular exposure or series of exposures was a substantial factor in bringing about the risk of the alleged injuries. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953…

  3. 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.

  4. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 4, 2019 · in the opinion

    Linsowe v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2019)

    …To be considered a proximate cause of an injury, the acts of the defendant must have been a \substantial factor' in contributing to the injury. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 969…

  5. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 2012 · in the opinion

    Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012)

    …context of products liability actions, the plaintiff must prove that the defective products supplied by the defendant were a substantial factor in bringing about his or her injury." (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 9, 2016 · in the opinion

    Rondon v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2016)

    …is imposed for three types of product defects: manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects. (Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995 \[281 Cal.Rptr. 528, 810 P.2d 549\] (Anderson).…

  7. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2012 · in the opinion

    Barker v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012)

    …defects: Manufacturing defects, design defects, and "\warning defects,' i.e., inadequate warnings or failures to warn."\[4\] (Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 995 \[281 Cal.Rptr. 528, 810 P.2d…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · July 31, 2002 · in the opinion

    In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (2002)

    … 1447(d) (emphasis added). We construed that language [\388] in Feidt v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 153 F.3d 124 (3d Cir.1998), where we held that "section 1447(d) prohibits review of remand orders \whether…

  9. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 1, 2012 · in the opinion

    Vanhooser v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2012)

    …difficult to determine when the injury occurs and "\[n\]o temporally discrete event exists that encompasses the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's injury." (Buttram v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1977) 16 Cal.4th 520…

  10. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 13, 2012 · in the opinion

    Shields v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012)

    …strictly liable for failure to warn of risks arising from other manufacturers' products — the court began with the general rule formulated in its decision in Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987…