6 results for “Owens-Corning Fiberglas”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · November 7, 2014 · in the opinion
Logan v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (2014)
…a large number of Powell valves at the refinery. \[4\] See, e.g., Haislip v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 86 F.3d 1150, at [\2] (4th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (unpublished) (applying Lohrmann to North Carolina…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · May 27, 2022 · in the opinion
Hilster v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2022)
…Aurora Pump Co., 2004 WL 2222935, at [\1] (Conn. Super. Sept. 14, 2004) (quoting Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 726 F. Supp. 172, 174 (W.D. Mich. 1989)). "The plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · May 18, 2020 · in the opinion
Whitehead v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2020)
…that product liable." See Jones v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 69 F.3d 712, 716 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1995) (applying the threshold causation standard outlined in Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · November 9, 2021 · in the opinion
Data v. AO Smith Corporation (2021)
…of such a nature as to raise a reasonable inference that \[s\]he inhaled asbestos fibers that emanated from it.'" Wilson, 807 A.2d at 923 (quoting Coward v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 1999 Pa. Super…
-
Court case · Tennessee Supreme Court · January 4, 2021 · in the opinion
Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2021)
…statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent without unduly restricting or expanding a statute's coverage beyond its intended scope." Howard, 504 S.W.3d at 269 (quoting Owens v. State…
-
Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · July 22, 2019 · in the opinion
Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2019)
…e have no basis to conclude in this diversity case that the Tennessee Supreme Court would overrule its prior decisions holding that a manufacturer owes no duty of care to consumers of products made by others…