Legal Opinion
Earl v. Cryovac, a Division of W.R. Grace Co.
Idaho Court of Appeals
Decided April 5, 1989No. 16982PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BURNETT, Judge.
This is a toxic tort case. James Earl has alleged that his lungs were injured when he was exposed at work to vapors emitted from a plastic film manufactured by the Cryovac division of W.R. Grace Company. He filed a worker’s compensation claim against his employer and filed this tort action against Cryovac. The worker’s compensation claim was settled. In this case, the district court entered summary judgment against Earl, holding that he had failed to establish any causal connection between his injury and Cryovac’s product. Today, we vacate the summary judgment and remand the…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- Sindell v. Abbott LaboratoriesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
- Richard Leander Ferebee, Jr. v. Chevron Chemical CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
- In Re "Agent Orange" Product Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1985
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Christian v. GraySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- G&M Farms v. Funk Irrigation Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1991
- William Stephens v. Union Pacific Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Rubanick v. Witco Chemical Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1991
- Zimko v. American CyanamidLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2005
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.