A number of significant asbestos cases have been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C.
Norfolk & Western v. Ayers: Among the most recent of these was a 2003 ruling by the Supreme Court in a West Virginia case (Norfolk & Western v. Ayers) that six railroad workers suffering from asbestosis were allowed to recover ?pain and suffering' damages due to the mental anguish created by the fear of developing cancer or mesothelioma by their current diagnoses. In the same case, the Supreme Court decided that Norfolk & Western could be held responsible for the entire amount of the judgment even though the negligence of other employers and parties not named in the suit may have jointly contributed to the disability.
Amchem v. Windsor: The landmark 1997 Supreme Court decision upheld a lower court's decision overturning a nationwide class action settlement that would have established a commission to pay past and future asbestos-related claims against twenty different defendants. That settlement would have denied the right of future claimants to bring suit against any of the named defendants. The Supreme Court held that the 'class' formed was not a legitimate class as it was too divergent, and the settlement was contrary to the interests of many of those represented.
Norfolk & Western v. Ayers: Among the most recent of these was a 2003 ruling by the Supreme Court in a West Virginia case (Norfolk & Western v. Ayers) that six railroad workers suffering from asbestosis were allowed to recover ?pain and suffering' damages due to the mental anguish created by the fear of developing cancer or mesothelioma by their current diagnoses. In the same case, the Supreme Court decided that Norfolk & Western could be held responsible for the entire amount of the judgment even though the negligence of other employers and parties not named in the suit may have jointly contributed to the disability.
Amchem v. Windsor: The landmark 1997 Supreme Court decision upheld a lower court's decision overturning a nationwide class action settlement that would have established a commission to pay past and future asbestos-related claims against twenty different defendants. That settlement would have denied the right of future claimants to bring suit against any of the named defendants. The Supreme Court held that the 'class' formed was not a legitimate class as it was too divergent, and the settlement was contrary to the interests of many of those represented.
