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

Search

6 results for “Owens-Illinois”

  1. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 3, 1997

    Anchor Packing Co. v. Grimshaw (1997)

    …reversed the judgment against Hopeman Brothers. It otherwise affirmed the judgments for the plaintiffs against Anchor and Owens-Corning. The Maryland cap on noneconomic damages applies to asbestos wrongful death claims arising after October 1, 1994…

  2. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · February 1, 2010

    Crane v. Linkus (2010)

    George Linkus, a Baltimore shipyard machinist, was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in 2005 and sued John Crane, Inc. and others. He had worked at the Key Highway shipyard from 1952 to 1959, overhauling valves and packing them with dry, powdery…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · August 10, 2015 · in the opinion

    Haney v. 3M Company (2015)

    …for Summary Judgment \[ECF No. 849\] is GRANTED. The Cross-Claim of Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Against Defendant Owens Illinois, Inc. \[ECF No. 687\] is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Judgment shall be entered by separate Order. SO ORDERED…

  4. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · October 11, 1996 · in the opinion

    ACandS Inc. v. Asner (1996)

    …s conclusions, namely that the evidence relating to TLVs offered by the petitioners was properly excluded and that the evidence offered in support of punitive damages was sufficient under the test enunciated in Owens-Illinois, Inc…

  5. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 27, 1995 · in the opinion

    ACandS, Inc. v. Asner (1995)

    …all of the other companies settled, became bankrupt, or were dismissed from the case. AC & S was dismissed from the Payne action. Appellants cross-claimed for contribution against Owens-Illinois, Inc., GAF, Inc., Pittsburgh Corning Corporation…

  6. 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…