Legal Opinion

Howard v. A.W. Chesterton Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 26, 2013PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

2Per curiam

This asbestos-litigation appeal is being resolved upon mutual consent among the parties, who agree that the order of the Superior Court should be reversed.

Appellants were manufacturers or distributors of asbestos-containing products and are defendants in litigation initiated by John C. Ravert and later pursued by Ap-pellees as co-executors of Mr. Ravert’s estate. Mr. Ravert and Appellees contended that his exposure to Appellants’ asbestos-containing products caused meso-thelioma.

The common pleas court awarded summary judgment in favor of Appellants, reasoning that Mr. Ravert’s deposition…

3Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLCSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  2. Gregg v. VJ Auto Parts, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. Howard v. A.W. Chesterton Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011

4Cited by15 opinions

  1. Krauss, C. v. Trane US Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Rost, Richard, M., Exec. v. Ford Motor Co., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  3. McMunn v. Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2017
  4. Walsh, R. v. BASF CorporationSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  5. Anderson, W. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023

10 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