martindale.com
Legal Library
|
Craig T. Liljestrand Document Search Results (10) Sort by:  | Arizona Law Limits Asbestos Successor Corporation Liability
Craig T. Liljestrand; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article May 10, 2012, previously published on May 8, 2012 Arizona has just provided successor corporations that find themselves sitting as defendants in the asbestos litigation with some welcome news. Recently signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer, the new legislation limits the cumulative liability of a successor corporation for asbestos claims.
|  | California Supreme Court Finds That Equipment Manufacturers Are Not Liable in Negligence or Strict Liability for Component Parts Manufactured by Third Party
Daniel A. Garcia, Craig T. Liljestrand; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article January 18, 2012, previously published on January 17, 2012 On January 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court held in Barbara J. O'Neil, et al. v. Crane Co., et al., that manufacturers of products whose component parts contained asbestos may not be held liable in strict liability or negligence for injuries caused by another manufacturer's...
| | Ohio Bill Requires Trust Disclosure by Plaintiffs to Inject Transparency in Asbestos Litigation
Craig T. Liljestrand; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article January 6, 2012, previously published on January 5, 2012 The Ohio General Assembly recently responded to the accelerated rate of asbestos-driven bankruptcies by considering a new bill, H.B. 380, which requires plaintiffs in civil actions to disclose to defendants any pending claims against asbestos trusts. The bill recognizes that there are two paths to...
| | Missouri Court Holds That State’s Workers’ Compensation Law Not Exclusive Remedy for Occupational Diseases
Craig T. Liljestrand; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article October 13, 2011, previously published on October 12, 2011 The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, has held that the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) does not provide the exclusive remedy for plaintiffs seeking redress for occupational diseases. State ex rel. KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Co. v. The Honorable Jacqueline Cook,...
| | Delaware Joins Trend of States Rejecting “Take Home” Asbestos Claims
Craig T. Liljestrand; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article August 17, 2011, previously published on August 16, 2011 In a victory for toxic tort defendants, the Delaware Supreme Court recently rejected a “take home” asbestos claim because no “special relationship” existed between the subject worker’s spouse and the worker’s employer. Price v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.,...
| | Defendants Chalk up Another Victory on Take-Home Asbestos Exposure in Illinois
Jason S. Bentley, Craig T. Liljestrand; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article August 3, 2011, previously published on August 2, 2011 In business, investing, and apparently in secondary exposure take-home asbestos cases, timing is everything, especially in Illinois. This point was recently made clear by the Fourth District, Illinois Appellate Court in Holmes v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, et. al., No. 4-10-0462 (4th Dist. 2011).
| | Retroactive Application of Florida’s Asbestos and Silica Compensation Fairness Act Held Unconstitutional
Peter J. Frommer, Daniel A. Garcia, Craig T. Liljestrand; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article July 18, 2011, previously published on July 11, 2011 On July 8, 2011, the Supreme Court of Florida issued its opinion (5-2 decision) in American Optical Corp. v. Spiewak, Nos. SC08-1616, SC08-1640, SC08-1617, SC08-1639, 2011 WL 2652189 (Fla. 2011), on consolidated asbestos appeals pending since 2008. The sole issue on appeal was the constitutionality...
| | Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Address Admissibility of Scientific Testimony in Toxic Tort Cases
Craig T. Liljestrand; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article July 5, 2011, previously published on June 30, 2011 The state appellate court in Pennsylvania recently made a bizarre ruling that allows dubious scientific claims to be admitted at trial as evidence. Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 998 A. 2d 962 (2010). The trial court had excluded scientific testimony which declared that asbestos causes mesothelioma for...
| | Wisconsin Rejects Medical Monitoring Requests, Holds Toxic Tort Claims Cannot Arise out of Increased Risk of Cancer
Steven M. DeVougas, Craig T. Liljestrand, Thomas R. Schrimpf; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article June 27, 2011, previously published on June 22, 2011 The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently rejected a medical monitoring claim, holding that “[i]ncreased risk of future harm is not an actual injury under Wisconsin law.” Alsteen v. Wauleco, Appeal No. 2010AP1643, 2011 WL 2314988, (Wis. App. June 14, 2011).
| | Starting The Statute Of Limitations Clock In California Becomes More Difficult In Certain Toxic Tort Cases
Craig T. Liljestrand; Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP;
Legal Alert/Article June 21, 2011, previously published on June 17, 2011 The California Supreme Court recently decided that claims arising from separate injuries caused by the same wrongdoing may accrue on different dates according to when the plaintiff discovered each injury. Pooshs v. Philip Morris USA, INC., 51 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2011).
|
|