HORTON ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
HARWICK CHEMICAL CORPORATION; A.W. CHESTERTON ET AL., APPELLEES.
DERRICK, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN CRANE, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES.
Supreme Court of Ohio.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Submitted January 11, 1995.
Decided September 13, 1995.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Michael F. Colley Co., L.P.A., Daniel N. Abraham, Thomas F. Martello, Jr., and David K. Frank, for appellants.
Baden & Jones Co., L.P.A., Thomas P. Erven and Nancy R. Blankenbuehler, for appellee A.W. Chesterton Company.
Day, Cook & Gallagher, David L. Day and Dale D. Cook, for appellee John Crane, Inc.
Hermann, Cahn & Schneider, Gary D. Hermann, Jay H. Salamon and Romney B. Cullers, for appellee Pittsburgh Corning Corporation.
A. Russell Smith and R. Bryan Nace, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.
Charles R. Armstrong and Carolyn T. Wonders, urging reversal for amicus curiae, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC.
Joyce Goldstein Co., L.P.A., and Joyce Goldstein, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Cleveland Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO.
Adams Legal Services and Russell J. Adams, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Asbestos Victims of America.
Davis & Young Co., L.P.A., and Martin J. Murphy, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation.
Ronald G. Rossetti, Jr., urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Mary Ellen Fairfield, Richard D. Schuster and Brent C. Taggart, urging affirmance for amici curiae, Acands, Inc., BF Goodrich Company and the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.
Baker & Hostetler, Randall L. Solomon and John H. Burtch, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Center for Claims Resolution.
Bunda, Stutz & Dewitt, Robert A. Bunda, Barbara J. Stutz and Anne Y. Koester, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Owens-Illinois, Inc.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
PFEIFER, J.
We are asked in this case to set forth the appropriate summary judgment standard for causation in asbestos cases, and specifically, whether Ohio courts should adopt the Lohrmann test. While this court is aware of the docketing problems that may exist with asbestos-exposure cases, we will not cause plaintiffs in such cases to carry a greater summary judgment burden than other personal injury plaintiffs...
Let's get started
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.
