LEONARD v. JOHNS-MANVILLE CORP.

No. 8114SC1020.

291 S.E.2d 828 (1982)

Marie R. LEONARD, Administratrix of the Estate of Samuel L. Leonard, Deceased v. JOHNS-MANVILLE SALES CORPORATION, A Delaware Corporation; Unarco Industries, Inc., An Illinois Corporation; GAF Corporation, A Delaware Corporation; Armstrong Cork Company, A Pennsylvania Corporation; Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., A Connecticut Corporation; Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, A Delaware Corporation; Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, A Pennsylvania Corporation; the Celotex Corporation, A Delaware Corporation; Nicolet Industries, A Pennsylvania Corporation; Forty-Eight Insulation, Inc., An Illinois Corporation; Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., An Ohio Corporation; Standard Asbestos & Insulation Co., A Missouri Corporation; Owens-Illinois, Inc., An Ohio Corporation; H. K. Porter, A Pennsylvania Corporation; National Gypsum Co., A Delaware Corporation; Fibreboard Corporation, A Delaware Corporation; Garlock, Inc., A Foreign Corporation; Keene Corporation, A New Jersey Corporation; North American Asbestos Corporation, A Foreign Corporation; Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd., A Foreign Corporation; Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd., A Foreign Corporation; Amatex Corporation, A Pennsylvania Corporation; Southern Asbestos Company.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 1, 1982.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Haywood, Denny & Miller by George W. Miller, Jr. and Michael W. Patrick, Durham, for plaintiff.

Crossley & Johnson by John F. Crossley, Wilmington, for defendant Johns-Manville Sales Corp.

Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter by McNeill Smith and Gerard H. Davidson, Jr., Greensboro, for defendant Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.

Poisson, Barnhill & Britt by Donald E. Britt, Jr., Wilmington, for defendant Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.

C. K. Brown, Jr., Raleigh, for defendant The Celotex Corp.

Maupin, Taylor & Ellis by Armistead J. Maupin and Richard M. Lewis, Raleigh, for defendant Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.


HARRY C. MARTIN, Judge.

Although plaintiff argues that on 26 May 1981 Judge Braswell again denied attorney Motley's motion for admission pro hac vice, the record on appeal does not sustain that contention. It is clear that Judge Braswell only denied plaintiff's alternative motion to reconsider the order of 4 March 1981. Plaintiff did not except to the order of 4 March 1981, and plaintiff's notice of appeal is only directed to the order of 26 May 1981.

The...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases