Cases

285 B.R. 864 (2002) In re ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Debtors. No. 00-04471 (RJN). United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware. October 22, 2002. *865 *866 Rebecca L. Booth, Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, DE, Mark D. Collins, Richards Layton & Finger, Wilmington, DE, Debo

OPINION SWEET, District Judge. After twenty-five days of trial, the jury awarded plaintiff John Consorti (“Consorti”) $12 million for pain and suffering. Defendant Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation (“OCF”) now moves for a new trial or a remittitur reducing Consorti’s pain and suffering to an amount no greater than $3.5 million. Although the motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, a remit

PER CURIAM: By order dated July 1, 1996, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated our judgment, and remanded to us for reconsideration in light of Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996). The procedural history of the Gasperini case was very similar to ours. The district judge denied the defendant’s application for remittitur and entere

LEVAL, Circuit Judge: Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation (“OCF”), a fabricator of asbestos pipe-covering products, appeals from jury verdicts in favor of John Consorti, a pipe insulation worker who developed mesothelioma as the result of exposure to asbestos dust, and his wife Frances for loss of consortium. The trial in the Southern District of New York before Robert W. Sweet, Judge, which consumed 25 trial days

McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judge: John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (“Crane”) appeals from a personal injury and wrongful death judgment, jointly entered on July 31, 1992 by the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York (Charles P. Sifton, Judge), following a consolidated asbestos jury trial. In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 798 F.Supp. 925 & 798 F.Supp. 940 (E. & S.D.N.

949 F.2d 1088 Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,979Raymond E. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. (successor to ArmstrongCork Company, a Pennsylvania corp.); Acands, Inc., aDelaware corp.; Combustion Engineering, Inc. (successor toM.H. Detrick Company & Walsh Refractory, a Delaware corp.);Fibreboard Corporation (successor to Plant Rubber & AsbestosCo., a Delaware corp.); GAF Corporation

OPINION OF THE COURT SCIRICA, Circuit Judge. This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania anti-takeover act of 1990. Plaintiffs, sharehold*408ers of Armstrong World Industries, Inc.,1 brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and Armstro

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Raymond Miller brought this diversity action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against various manufacturers and distributors of asbestos products (together, Defendants)1 alleging that he developed asbestosis, an asbestos-related disease, as a result of his exposure to Defendants’ products. Plaintiff is presently appealing from an

961 F.2d 405 60 USLW 2682, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,589 ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., derivatively by TessieWOLFSON and Rodney B. Shields, as well as in their own rightv.William W. ADAMS; Barbara Hackman Franklin; E. AllenDeaver; George A. Lorch; William Wallace Abbott; FrancisV. Breeze; William M. Ellinghaus; Mary Joan Glynn; JosephL. Jones; James E. Marley; Robert F. Patton; J. Ph

817 P.2d 111 (1991) Raymond E. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. (Successor to Armstrong Cork Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation), Acands, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Combustion Engineering, Inc., (Successor to M.H. Detrick Company & Walsh Refractory, a Delaware Corporation), Fibreboard Corporation (Successor to Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., a Delaware Corporation), GAF Corporation (Successor to Ruberoid C

OPINION OF THE COURT MANSMANN, Circuit Judge. This appeal requires that we resolve an evidentiary dispute arising in the context of a personal injury action alleging negligence and conspiracy on the part of various manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-containing products. The plaintiffs appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of the def

601 F.Supp. 399 (1984) Leslie YOUNG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. A.C. YOUNG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Ray OTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. Melvin WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORTY-EIGHT INSULATIONS, INC. et al., Defendants. George R. ODER, et al., Plainti

29 B.R. 391 (1983) In re JAMES A. PHILLIPS, INC., Debtor. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. JAMES A. PHILLIPS, INC., Appellee. Nos. 82 Civ. 5264(ADS), 82 Civ. 5265(ADS). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 28, 1983. *392 Gifford, Woody, Palmer & Serles, New York City, for appellant; James P. B

J^McDONALD, J. Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s granting of partial summary judgment in favor of defendant tobacco company, limiting their claims to those governed by the Louisiana Product Liability Act. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Maurice Kemp was diagnosed in November 1997 with adenocarcinoma. At the time he was 46 years old, had been smoking since age 14, and had w

627 F.Supp. 1057 (1986) Charles RIDLING, et al. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD, et al. Helen WILLIAMS, et al. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD, et al. Edna GRAVES, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of L.L. Graves, Deceased, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD, et al. Edward YOUNG, et al. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD, et al. Lauree CONAWAY, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Louis Conaway, Deceased, v. OWENS-CORNING FIBE

103 F.3d 2 John CONSORTI & Frances Consorti, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known asArmstrong Cork Co.; Combustion Engineering, Inc.,et al., Defendants,Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., Defendant-Appellant. No. 857, Docket 94-7501. United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. Decided Aug. 28, 1995.Amended Dec

72 F.3d 1003 33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 79 John CONSORTI & Frances Consorti, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known asArmstrong Cork Co.; Combustion Engineering, Inc.,et al., Defendants,Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., Defendant-Appellant. No. 857, Docket 94-7501. United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit.

785 F.Supp. 1448 (1992) CAIN, etc. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al. WEAVER, et al. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al. HICKS, etc. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al. BOLEN v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al. CLEMENTS, et al. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al. James WEAVER, et al. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, et al. BENJAMIN, et al. v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRI

928 F.2d 1366 59 USLW 2582, 32 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 699,Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P 12,828 Selena H. THREADGILL, Individually and as Executrix of theEstate of Walter L. Threadgill;Gerald G. Threadgill, Nancy L. Threadgill and Barbara E.Threadgill Ross, children of Walter L. Threadgill, deceasedv.ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known asArmstrong Cork Company; Atlas Turner, Ltd., formerly k

569 So.2d 1307 (1990) Daniel W. REAVES, Appellant, v. ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Appellees. No. 89-2289. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. October 31, 1990. Rehearing and Certification Denied December 10, 1990. Brent M. Rosenthal of Baron & Budd, P.C., Dallas, Tex. and Louis S. Robles, Miami, for appellant.