1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.App.4th
  4. 165 Cal.App.4th
  5. 165 Cal.App.4th 150 (2008)
 

CLARK v. OPTICAL COATING LABORATORY, INC.

Nos. A115399, A115445, A115474, A116164, A116901.

165 Cal.App.4th 150 (2008)

CARLA M. CLARK et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. OPTICAL COATING LABORATORY, INC., Defendant and Respondent. CARLA M. CLARK et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents; CHARLES D. COCHRAN, Objector and Appellant. CARLA M. CLARK et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents; KEITH A. ROBINSON et al., Objectors and Appellants. CARLA M. CLARK et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent.

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.

July 24, 2008.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Dell'Ario & LeBoeuf, Alan Charles Dell'Ario, Jacques LeBoeuf; Gonzalez & Robinson, Joseph D. Gonzalez and Keith A. Robinson for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Eisenberg and Hancock, Jon B. Eisenberg and William N. Hancock for Objectors and Appellants Keith A. Robinson and Gonzalez & Robinson.

Waxler Carner Weinreb Brodsky, Andrew J. Waxler and Gretchen S. Carner for Objector and Appellant Charles D. Cochran.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, David Chaney, Chief Assistant Attorney General, James Schiavenza, Assistant Attorney General, Tyler B. Pon and David W. Hamilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent State of California.

Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp, John F. Bargand and Jonathan Polland for Defendant and Respondent Union Pacific Railroad Company.

Collette Erickson Farmer & O'Neill, John V. Erickson and Robert S. Lawrence for Defendant and Respondent Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc.

OPINION

MARGULIES, J.

This toxic tort lawsuit by 32 plaintiffs went to a jury trial against defendants the State of California (the State), Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Union Pacific), and Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI). The trial was marked by repeated objections, sustained by the court, that plaintiffs' attorneys were violating its in limine orders. Ultimately, after...

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