7 results for “Owens-Corning Fiberglas”
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 14, 1999
Coward v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999)
The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Owens-Corning's motions for judgment n.o.v. and a new trial, leaving the plaintiffs' verdicts and the judgment entered for them in place. Where…
-
Court case · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · March 6, 1997
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Henkel (1997)
The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments for the plaintiffs against Owens-Corning Fiberglas, rejecting its Batson, state-of-the-art evidence and statute of limitations challenges. A Batson objection must be raised before…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 29, 1998 · in the opinion
Adams v. Owens-Illinois (1998)
…percent of the cases where no asbestos exposure is involved, according to one of appellant's own medical experts. The credibility of the witnesses was for the jury to determine. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett…
-
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…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · December 31, 2007
Penn v. A-Best Prods. Co. (2007)
Eight Ohio workers or their estates sued many companies, claiming asbestos-related diseases from their employment. Hubbard, Siegel and Price had colon cancer; Williams had laryngeal cancer; Ward had lung cancer; Roth, Penn and Harrison had…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · December 2, 2022 · in the opinion
Nuckols v. Consol. Rail Corp. (2022)
…nevertheless, that there existed factual disputes regarding when plaintiff first had a duty to investigate whether his exposure to diesel exhaust may have been a cause of his cancers. See also Owens v. Union Pacific RR…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 3, 2014
Haver v. BNSF Railway Co. (2014)
…Ford Motor Co., a premises owner owes no duty of care to family members of workers who are secondarily exposed to asbestos off the premises, whether the worker was employed by the owner or by a…