6 results for “Union Carbide Corporation”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · September 16, 2014
Sherin v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (2014)
The court denied Union Carbide's motion in limine and its summary judgment motion on product identification, exposure and causation, but granted summary judgment to Union Carbide on the duty-to-warn claim and on the…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · July 25, 2013 · in the opinion
Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2013)
…the evidence showed that the plaintiff was exposed to Ford brakes only seven times 45 years before the suit was filed. A somewhat similar circumstance existed in Butler v. Union Carbide Corporation, 310 Ga.App. 21…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · October 31, 2014
Netzer v. Union Carbide Corp. (2014)
Henry Netzer, a lifelong Maryland resident diagnosed with mesothelioma in March 2013, sued Union Carbide Corp. and other defendants in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. He alleged exposure to asbestos dust from Westinghouse products, including…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 7, 1998 · in the opinion
ACandS v. Abate (1998)
…About two years after the symptoms began, Ciotta received a letter from his trade union regarding asbestos-exposure and was urged to have a chest X-ray. Ciotta got the X-ray and the doctors recommended…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · November 2, 2018 · in the opinion
Estate of Schatz v. John Crane, Inc. (2018)
…contractors who supervised the workers, and union officials.'" Appellants misconstrue the "feasibility" discussion in Farrar. First, the Court never stated that the feasibility of the warning depended on the ability of the manufacturer to warn an…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · July 8, 2013 · in the opinion
Georgia Pacific v. Farrar (2013)
…should have been aware, of the danger to household members at the time. See Rohrbaugh v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, 965 F.2d 844 (10th Cir.1992) (applying Oklahoma law); Martin v. Cincinnati Gas and Electric…