Cases

FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: These consolidated appeals arise from judgments based on jury verdicts entered in the plaintiffs’ favor in four of the hundreds of asbestos product liability actions pending in the district court in coordinated *809proceedings. The cases now on appeal were brought by or on behalf of individuals who were exposed to asbestos dust while serving i

115 B.R. 417 (1990) In re RBS INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a Milford Rivet & Machine Company, Modform, Interlock, Gary Screw & Bolt, Modulus, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 5-86-00345. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut. June 26, 1990. William F. Savino, Damon & Morey, Buffalo, N.Y., for Robert W. Raddatz, Plan Facilitator. Andrew M. DiPietro, Jr., DiPietro,

115 B.R. 419 (1990) In re RBS INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a Milford Rivet & Machine Company, Modform, Interlock, Gary Screw & Bolt, Modulus, Debtor. Bankruptcy No. 5-86-00345. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut. June 28, 1990. *420 William F. Savino, Damon & Morey, Buffalo, N.Y., for Robert W. Raddatz, Plan Facilitator.

664 F.Supp. 463 (1987) Mary G. ADAMS, surviving widow of Frank Herbert Adams, Frankie Adams and Fred Adams, Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Gloria A. WATERS, surviving widow of Ross Greenwood Waters, Jr., David Waters, Teri Thompson and Dennis Waters, Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Civ. Nos. 80-4161, 83-4120. United

960 F.2d 806 60 USLW 2668, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,152 In re HAWAII FEDERAL ASBESTOS CASES. (Four Cases)David K. KAIU; Lillian M. Kaiu, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC., a corporation, formerly known asRaybestos-Manhattan, Inc., et al., Defendants,andFibreboard Corporation, formerly known as Fibreboard PaperProducts Corporation, a Delaware corporation,Defendant-Appellan

OPINION OF THE COURT COWEN, Circuit Judge. The City of Philadelphia (“City”) and the Philadelphia Housing Authority (“PHA”) brought this action against manufacturers of lead pigment and their trade association to recover the costs of abating hazardous lead-based paint which plaintiffs must incur pursuant to newly promulgated federal regulations. Plaintiffs allege that for decades defendants knew their pro

906 F.2d 53 30 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 452 Robert FAGIOLA, as Executor of the Estate of Ernest T.Fagiola, Plaintiff,v.NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY AC & S., INC., Armstrong WorldIndustries, Inc., f/d/a Armstrong Cork Co., The Celotex Co.,individually and as successor-in-interest to Philip CareyManufacturing Co., Philip Carey Corp., Briggs ManufacturingCo., Smith & Kanzler Corp., and Panacon Cor

OPINION BILL VANCE, Justice. The appeal of this products liability case primarily raises issues of federal preemption, legal sufficiency of the evidence, and proportionate responsibility. Finding that the trial court abused its discretion by not asking the jury to find the bus driver’s or his employer’s proportionate responsibility as settling parties, we will reverse and remand. I. Backgr

837 So.2d 1219 (2003) Jimmy and Brenda BONNETTE, et al. v. CONOCO, INC., et al. No. 2001-C-2767. Supreme Court of Louisiana. January 28, 2003. *1221 Kenneth R. Spears, SWIFT, SPEARS & HARPER, Lake Charles; Mark R. Zehler, Robert E. Arceneaux, Joseph E. LeBlanc, Jr., Eric E. Jarrell, Timothy S. Madden, Elizabeth S. Wheeler, Ne

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS <

ROBERT F. FISCHER, Judge (retired), Specially Assigned. The appeal before us is from the second major consolidated trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City arising from exposure to asbestos-containing products. The first consolidation, known as Abate I, was tried before the Honorable Marshall A. Levin from February 18, 1992 to August 10; 1992. In that proceeding, the cases of s

RAKER, Judge. Petitioners, a host of tobacco manufacturers and related entities, have filed a petition with this Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, asking that we direct the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to vacate its certification of two classes of Maryland residents who, as current or former users of tobacco products, have filed a suit against Petitioners claiming

729 N.E.2d 36 (2000) 312 Ill. App.3d 1087 246 Ill.Dec. 36 HAPAG-LLOYD (AMERICA), INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY; Three I Truck Line, Inc.; CRST International, Inc.; Connecticut Indemnity Company; United National Insurance Company; Federal Insurance Company; William Vasilion and Northern Trust Company, as Plenary Co-Guardians of the Estate of Diane Vasilion; William Vasilion, In

834 F.Supp. 1437 (1993) Edward J. CARLOUGH, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs, v. ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Third Party Defendants. Civ. A. No. 93-0215. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. October 6, 1993.

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS In these cases, we consider the appropriate method of calculating prejudgment interest under Cavnar v. QualityControl Parking, 696 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1985), in personal injury and wrongful death cases involving an asbestos-related injury or disease or other latent injury or disease. Mable Burt, Individually and as Representative of the E

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-06-00256-CV MCI SALES AND SERVICE, INC., F/K/A HAUSMAN BUS SALES, INC., AND MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V., F/K/A DINA AUTOBUSES, S.A. DE C.V., Appellants v. JAMES HINTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DOLORES HINTON, DECEASED, ET AL.,

ELDRIDGE, Judge. We issued a writ of certiorari in these cases to consider several important questions relating to a strict products *428liability cause of action based on failure to warn of the dangerousness of the products, and to reconsider some of the principles governing awards of punitive damages in tort cases.

582 A.2d 978 (1990) KASU CORP. v. BLAKE, HALL & SPRAGUE, INC. Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Submitted on Briefs November 14, 1990. Decided November 29, 1990. *979 Grover Alexander, Gray, for plaintiff. Geoffrey Cummings, Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, Portland, for defendant. Before McKUSICK, C.J.,

140 B.R. 643 (1992) In the Matter of HOLLY'S, INC., d/b/a Holly's Landing, Holly's Bistro, Holly's By Golly!, Grazin' in the Brass, Holiday Inn Expressway, Holiday Inn West, Holiday Inn-Grand Rapids South, Holiday Inn-Grand Rapids North, Holly's Holiday Lanes, Holiday Inn-Grand Rapids East, Econolodge-Grand Rapids, Econolodge-Muskegon, Meadowwood Country Club, Nob Hill Bakery, Division Laundry, Holly's Back Door Bar & Grill, Escapades, and formerly <

WINTER, Circuit Judge: This is an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the two defendants-appellees in a multiple-defendant asbestos case. The only issue concerns the admission of the testimony of, and documentary evidence prepared by, a “summary” witness regarding the sale of asbestos products to the General Dynamics Corporation. We conclude that the district court did not err in admitting this evidence and affirm.