74 results for “Owens-Illinois”, page 4 of 4
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 23, 1999
Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. James (1999)
The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the Court of Special Appeals' dismissal of Pittsburgh Corning's and Owens Corning's appeals, holding that denial of their motions to dismiss for inconvenient forum could not be…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · August 10, 2018 · in the opinion
Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (2018)
…is what the Court of Appeals has "termed a \bystander,' in that he did not work directly with the asbestos products but was in the vicinity of where such products were used." Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 26, 2018 · in the opinion
Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (2018)
…is what the Court of Appeals has "termed a \bystander,' in that he did not work directly with the asbestos products but was in the vicinity of where such products were used." Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · October 18, 1989 · in the opinion
Vaughn v. Marine Transport Lines, Inc. (1989)
…Owens, Baltimore, Md., Richard Lerch, Lerch and Huesman, Michael Mann, Mann and Whelley, P.A., Towson, Md., James Eyler, Miles and Stockbridge, Baltimore, Md., H. Emslie Parks, Parks, Hansen & Ditch, Towson, Md., Rodger Robertson, Curran-Owens…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 30, 2013 · in the opinion
Burns v. Bechtel Corp. (2013)
…v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 905 F.2d 793 (4th Cir.1990) (interpreting Virginia's statute of repose); Buttz v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 557 N.W.2d 90 (Iowa 1996); Olsen v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co.…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · February 10, 2005 · in the opinion
Wilson v. John Crane, Inc. (2005)
…to move. For example, this fluid makes it easier for the lungs to move during breathing." See American Cancer Society at http://www.cancer.org. As we noted in Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett, 343…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · November 20, 2017 · in the opinion
Davenport v. Mcic, Inc. (2017)
…is what the Court of Appeals has "termed a \bystander,' in that he did not work directly with the asbestos products but was in the vicinity of where such products were used." Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 3, 2005 · in the opinion
Benjamin v. Union Carbide Corporation (2005)
…Wilson v. John Crane, Inc., 385 Md. 185, \_\_\_ (2005)(quoting Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett, 343 Md. 500, 506-507 n.2 (1996)). \[5\] The court granted the motion after a hearing held on April…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · June 11, 2002 · in the opinion
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Pransky (2002)
…Inc., 283 Md. 296, 328, 389 A.2d 887, 906 (1978) (same); Owens-Corning v. Walatka, 125 Md.App. 313, 342, 725 A.2d 579, 593 (1999) (same). Because Lisa did not handle the joint compound…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · July 11, 2002 · in the opinion
Sledz v. Flintkote Co. (2002)
…key question for courts regarding removal under § 1446(b) has been when an action commences [\562] for the purposes of the statute. Zumas v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 907 F.Supp. 131, 132 (D.Md.1995)…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · June 22, 2021 · in the opinion
Staubs v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (2021)
…. . to recognize the separate disease rule" in toxic exposure cases); Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 601 N.W.2d 627, 630, 642 (Wis. 1999) (holding that "a person who brings an action based on a…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · June 4, 2004
Wajer v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (2004)
…asbestos insulation and products nearby. The circuit court granted summary judgment to BGE, reasoning that a landowner owes no duty to an independent contractor's employees. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. It held that several…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 31, 2019 · in the opinion
Pinner v. Pinner (2019)
…showing of privity or its equivalent"). Under that rule, "an attorney owes a duty to his client or employer, and therefore only that client or employer can recover against him for that breach." Id. at 127…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · July 3, 2019 · in the opinion
Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (2019)
…permissible to inform a jury that a co-defendant to the asbestos lawsuit had been dismissed when a remaining defendant "opens the door" by introducing evidence relating to the earlier presence of that now-dismissed party…