Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.green2 sentences2020“To support a reasonable inference of substantial causation from circumstantial evidence, there must be evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.” Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162-1163 (4th Cir.1986); Schwartz at ¶ 12-13 (indicating that the legislature “adopt[ed]” the Lohrmann test in “establish[ing] specific factors to be considered in determining whether exposure to asbestos from a particular defendant’s product was a substantial factor in causing a plaintiff’s 2020“To support a reasonable inference of substantial causation from circumstantial evidence, there must be evidence of exposure to a specific product on a regular basis over some extended period of time in proximity to where the plaintiff actually worked.” Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 782 F.2d 1156, 1162-1163 (4th Cir.1986); Schwartz at ¶ 12-13 (indicating that the legislature “adopt[ed]” the Lohrmann test in “establish[ing] specific factors to be considered in determining whether exposure to asbestos from a particular defendant’s product was a substantial factor in causing a plaintiff’s | 3 | 8 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Horton v. Harwick Chemical Corp.
green
2 sentences2011The Lohrmann court stressed the immensity of the shipyard in that case as a reason for affirming the district court’s use of what later became known as the Lohrmann test: {¶ 53} “ ‘[W]hen one considers the size of a workplace such as Key Highway Shipyard, the mere proof that the plaintiff and a certain asbestos product are at the shipyard at the same time, without more, does not prove exposure to that product.’ Lohrmann, 782 F.2d at 1162 .” Horton, 73 Ohio St.3d 679 , 653 N.E.2d 1196 . {¶ 54} But here, we are not concerned with fiber drift. 2011The Lohrmann court stressed the immensity of the shipyard in that case as a reason for affirming the district court’s use of what later became known as the Lohrmann test: {¶ 53} “ ‘[W]hen one considers the size of a workplace such as Key Highway Shipyard, the mere proof that the plaintiff and a certain asbestos product are at the shipyard at the same time, without more, does not prove exposure to that product.’ Lohrmann, 782 F.2d at 1162 .” Horton, 73 Ohio St.3d 679 , 653 N.E.2d 1196 . {¶ 54} But here, we are not concerned with fiber drift. | 4 | 2007–2011 |
Schultz v. Keene Corp.
green
2 sentences1995In refusing to adopt the Lohrmann test in Schultz v. Keene Corp. (N.D.Ill.1990), 729 F.Supp. 609, 615 , the court wrote: “[The] rule * * * flies in the face of evidence which indicates that short periods of exposure — from one day to three months — can cause significant damage to the lungs. 1995In refusing to adopt the Lohrmann test in Schultz v. Keene Corp. (N.D.Ill.1990), 729 F.Supp. 609, 615 , the court wrote: “[The] rule * * * flies in the face of evidence which indicates that short periods of exposure — from one day to three months — can cause significant damage to the lungs. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Bogle
green
2 sentences2008The definition, as it relates to the “procedural prioritization” of asbestos claims, Bogle, 115 Ohio St.3d 455 , 2007-Ohio-5248 , 875 N.E.2d 919 , ¶ 16, does not alter the substantive law of causation in the same vein as the adoption of R.C. 2307.96. 2008The definition, as it relates to the “procedural prioritization” of asbestos claims, Bogle, 115 Ohio St.3d 455 , 2007-Ohio-5248 , 875 N.E.2d 919 , ¶ 16, does not alter the substantive law of causation in the same vein as the adoption of R.C. 2307.96. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Ackison v. Anchor Packing Co., Unpublished Decision (12-20-2006)
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Zurich Insurance Co. v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995Co. v. Raymark Indus., Inc. (1987), 118 Ill.2d 23, 37 , 514 N.E.2d 150, 156 . {¶ 20} The proximity aspect of the Lohrmann test also chooses sides in a scientifically disputed area. 1995Co. v. Raymark Indus., Inc. (1987), 118 Ill.2d 23, 37 , 514 N.E.2d 150, 156 . {¶ 20} The proximity aspect of the Lohrmann test also chooses sides in a scientifically disputed area. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
C. A. Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corporation
green
2 sentences1995Tex. 1981), 509 F.Supp. 1353, 1355 , reversed on other grounds, 681 F.2d 334 (C.A.5, 1982). {¶ 19} The temporal aspects of the Lohrmann test are scientifically dubious. 1995Tex. 1981), 509 F.Supp. 1353, 1355 , reversed on other grounds, 681 F.2d 334 (C.A.5, 1982). {¶ 19} The temporal aspects of the Lohrmann test are scientifically dubious. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
green
2 sentences1995Tex. 1981), 509 F.Supp. 1353, 1355 , reversed on other grounds, 681 F.2d 334 (C.A.5, 1982). {¶ 19} The temporal aspects of the Lohrmann test are scientifically dubious. 1995Tex. 1981), 509 F.Supp. 1353, 1355 , reversed on other grounds, 681 F.2d 334 (C.A.5, 1982). {¶ 19} The temporal aspects of the Lohrmann test are scientifically dubious. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
green
2 sentences1995Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 40, 42 , 514 N.E.2d 691, 693 . {¶ 15} The Lohrmann test purports to be a tool for determining whether a plaintiff’s evidence of causation, i.e., whether a particular product was a substantial factor in producing the plaintiff’s injury, is sufficient to withstand summary judgment. 1995Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 40, 42 , 514 N.E.2d 691, 693 . {¶ 15} The Lohrmann test purports to be a tool for determining whether a plaintiff’s evidence of causation, i.e., whether a particular product was a substantial factor in producing the plaintiff’s injury, is sufficient to withstand summary judgment. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.