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

Search

12 results for “Owens-Illinois”

  1. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · February 22, 2022 · in the opinion

    Budd v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2022)

    …compound. Given the differences between smoking an addictive substance and using a particular product in the course of employment, we reject this contention. See Raney v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 897 F.2d 94, 96 (2d Cir…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · June 22, 2017 · in the opinion

    Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (2017)

    …of punitive damages. This Court has previously granted Georgia-Pacific summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages in a similar asbestos action, Covington v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., No. GLR-12-461, 2014 WL 12661857…

  3. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · October 24, 2012 · in the opinion

    Rich v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2012)

    …to refutation on cross-examination). This does not render the prejudicial portion of Kirk's deposition dealing with Kaiser Gypsum's products admissible. See Murphy v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 779 F.2d 340, 344 (6th Cir…

  4. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 13, 2009 · in the opinion

    Silvestro v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2009)

    …A Lite 0% CertainTeed Corp. 5% Pipe Covering/Block Insulation Armstrong, Inc. 0% Owens-Illinois 0% Pittsburg Corning 0% Johns Manville 20% JT Thorpe and Son, Inc. 0% Metalclad Insulation Corp. 0% Refractiories/Castables AP Green…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Central District of California · February 12, 2013 · in the opinion

    Nelson v. Air and Liquid Systems Corp. (2013)

    …Gypsum Co., 98 Cal. App.4th 1098, 1103, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 23 (2002) (citations omitted) (citing Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953, 975-76, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 941 P.2d…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 30, 2002 · in the opinion

    McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (2002)

    …Plaintiffs A threshold issue in asbestos litigation is exposure to the defendant's product. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on this issue. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 975-976…

  7. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 1, 2014 · in the opinion

    Collin v. Calportland Company (2014)

    …containing CalPortland product. A plaintiff claiming asbestos-related injuries must establish some exposure to the asbestos-containing product or activity for which the defendant is responsible. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953…

  8. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 30, 2024 · in the opinion

    Brooks v. Mission Stucco Company (2024)

    …asbestos-related cancer cases, the plaintiff may seek to prove causation by establishing years of exposure to multiple manufacturers' asbestos-containing products. In Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, the California Supreme…

  9. Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 8, 2011 · in the opinion

    Saffold v. Bondex International, Inc. (2011)

    …before damages can be allotted to it." (Wilson v. Ritto (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 361, 369; Sparks v Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 461, 478 \[defendant manufacturer of asbestos-containing product "undisputedly…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · April 22, 2021 · in the opinion

    Roy v. Colgate Palmolive Co. (2021)

    …Young v. Louge, 660 So. 2d 32, 49 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1995). \[28\] Adams v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 923 So. 2d 118, 123 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2005); See also Pitman v. Crane Co…

  11. Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 24, 2019 · in the opinion

    Godfrey v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2019)

    …ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce; or (4) owns or possesses any real property situated within the state. (CPLR …

  12. Court case · New York Supreme Court · April 14, 2020 · in the opinion

    Montell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2020)

    …expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce; or (4) owns, uses or possesses any real property situated within the state." (CPLR …