Legal Opinion

Turley v. Familian Corp.

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided December 22, 2017No. A149752PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRichman, J.

*971Plaintiffs husband and wife sued for asbestos-related injury against numerous defendants, including defendant Familian Corporation. Familian moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiffs could not show exposure to asbestos in a Familian-related product. Plaintiffs' opposition included a declaration from a third party witness who had not been deposed, who testified in detail to such exposure. The trial court then continued the motion, allowed the witness to be deposed, and Familian then used portions of the deposition in support of its reply. The trial court thereafter concluded that…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  2. D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Reid v. Google, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2010

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Donohue v. Amn Servs., LLC, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
  2. Berg v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.California Court of Appeal · 2019
  3. De Meo v. Cooley LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
  4. Donohue v. AMN Services, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
  5. Donohue v. AMN Services, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API