6 results for “Union Carbide Corporation”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · August 5, 2009
Anderson v. Bondex Int'l (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2009)
…futile; defendants Bondex, Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide prevailed. An amended pleading relates back under Rule 15(c)(1)(B) only if it arises from the conduct, transaction or occurrence set out in the original pleading…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2010
Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)
…She and her family sued Georgia-Pacific, Bondex, RPM and Union Carbide, which were alleged to have made or sold chrysotile-containing joint compound. She said she was exposed in the 1970s while building two homes…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · July 10, 2009
Anderson v. Bondex Int'l (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2009)
…RPM, Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide to exclude evidence of plaintiff Anderson's exposure to joint compound dust during sanding and cleanup, holding the Virginia statute of repose did not bar it. Under Virginia's statute…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 8, 2011 · in the opinion
Saffold v. Bondex International, Inc. (2011)
…Pacific, Gold Bond, Union Carbide and Warner Bros. The only objections Bondex's counsel made to the verdict form concerned Warner Bros. and did not relate to the six manufacturers or other potential tortfeasors. C. Closing…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 13, 2009
Silvestro v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2009)
…and Settlement Credits; Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: his home and side construction jobs; engine rooms on ships union cement mason on residential and commercial construction projects 1946-1966; side construction jobs hanging drywall; home remodeling…
-
Court case · Missouri Court of Appeals · June 19, 2012 · in the opinion
Wagner v. Bondex International, Inc. (2012)
…merit. It is true that instructions submitted to the jury "must hypothesize the facts essential to the plaintiff's claim" and that \[a\]ssuming a disputed fact is erro\[neous\]." Lasky v. Union Elec. Co., 936…