Appeals of Brayton Purcell LLP
The advocacy of Brayton Purcell, L.L.P lawyers is not limited to the trial courts. We also promote the public good by championing a variety of consumer and worker issues in appeals courts.
(May 5, 2011)
The California Supreme Court weighed in on the question of whether the earliest injury from tobacco use started the statute of limitations running for all future injuries as well.
(August 5, 2009)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court that Northern California was the proper venue for Brayton Purcell’s copyright infringement suit against the law firm of Recordon & Recordon.
(June 4, 2009)
The Washington State Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, ruled that strict product liability applied retroactively in a case where asbestos exposure occurred prior to Washington State’s adoption of strict product liability law under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.
(December 8, 2008)
The Utah Court of Appeals denied US Steel Corp’s Petition for Permission to Appeal an Interlocutory Order. US Steel based its Petition on having no legal duty to plaintiff Vickie Warren.
(June 9, 2008)
A summary judgment in favor of defendant American Biltrite, Inc. was vacated and the case sent back for trial in the Washington State Superior Court in King County. The summary judgment was based on a witness’ testimony being excluded as a contradiction.
(June 4, 2008)
Maxlyn Cadlo successfully appealed a summary judgment in favor of Metalclad Insulation Corp. The Appellate Court’s decision vacated the judgment and sent the case back to the lower court for trial on the issue of damages.
(March 28, 2008)
The San Francisco First District Court of Appeals rejected an appeal by Asbestos Corporation, LTD. (“ACL”) and affirmed the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
(February 21, 2008)
The Washington State Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment in favor of Domco and reinstated Mr. and Mrs. Butler’s case.
(March 18, 2002)
Asbestos manufacturers lose on appeal; amount of damages to plaintiffs considered appropriate.
(October 4, 2000)
Appeals Court reaffirms the rights of asbestos victims to file a second lawsuit when they develop additional injuries from asbestos.
(July, 11, 2000)
Not to be published in official reports. Reversed a trial court’s order and granted a retired pipefitter suffering from asbestosis a new trial against an asbestos defendant.
(May 15, 2000)
CA Supreme Court reaffirms that statute of limitations did not bar right to file claims when asbestos–related cancers were discovered.
(October 28, 1999)
Not to be published in official reports. Reinstated plaintiffs’ case after grant of summary judgment for defense; strengthens a plaintiff’s case when plaintiff has evidence that a defendant’s products could have caused injury.
(January 11, 1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 348
Strengthened plaintiffs’ right to trial by jury by clarifying what a defendant must show before being granted “summary judgment.”
(September 15, 1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 878, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 356, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7220
Upheld “primary right” theory of the statute of limitations for asbestos cases.
(September 1, 1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 550, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 167, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6926
California jurisdiction is available against Canadian asbestos mining company with 38–year history of doing business in California.)
(May 26, 1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 148, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 132, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 546
Trial court findings upheld as to liability of asbestos mine; defense witnesses properly excluded.
(April 12, 1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1178, 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 580, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,245, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3641
“Consumer expectations” theory of products liability law is valid and applies against suppliers of raw asbestos)