You are here
MDL875
No reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos from gaskets supplied by Defendant (or Joy) such that it was a substantial factor in the development of his illness. Summary judgment was granted under ...
Summary judgment in favor of Defendant is granted under New Jersey law with respect to alleged asbestos in connection with pumps because Plaintiff has failed to identify sufficient product identification / causation evidence. Summary judgment...
Defendant Goulds could only potentially face liability in this action if New Jersey law holds Defendant liable for alleged exposure to asbestos arising from asbetsos components used with its products that were not manufactured or supplied by ...
Summary judgment in favor of Defendant is granted because Plaintiff is seeking liability on a premises owner liability theory but Plaintiff failed to identify any evidence of a breach of duty by Defendant as a premises owner.
The case was remanded for consideration by the transferor court (with a suggestion to transfer to the district of New Jersey), as the Court determined that the bare metal defense is an unsettled issue under New Jersey law.
Summary judgment in favor of Defendant granted in part under New Jersey law on grounds of insufficient product identification evidence.
Summary judgment in favor of Defendant granted under New Jersey law on grounds of insufficient product identification evidence.
Summary judgment in favor of Defendant granted under New Jersey law on grounds of insufficient product identification evidence.
Summary judgment in favor of Defendant granted under New Jersey law on grounds of insufficient product identification evidence.
Pages
