6 results for “Reaction Department”
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · January 10, 2013 · in the opinion
Vega v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (2013)
…s exhibit 20 is a 1966 study commissioned by UCC which revealed that rats had a more "severe reaction" to Calidria asbestos that had been mined by UCC in California than asbestos that had been mined…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2010 · in the opinion
Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)
… Deposition Pattern And Reaction Of Alveolar Epithelium And Pulmonary Macrophages," "Interstitial Accumulation Of Inhaled Chrysotile Asbestos Fibers And Consequent Formation of Microcalcifications," "Characterization Of Three Types Of Chrysotile Asbestos After Aerosolization," "Chrysotile Asbestos Inhalation Induces Tritiated…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 26, 2012 · in the opinion
Georgia-Pacific v. Farrar (2012)
…Md. at 726. The complaint alleged that Ms. Crews "suffered a hypoglycemic reaction and experienced a \blackout' causing her to lose control of her vehicle" and strike the vehicle driven by Mr. Gourdine, causing his death…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · November 22, 2010 · in the opinion
Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)
…Mem. Op., doc. no. 73, at 7.) These articles include, but are not limited to: Chrysotile asbestos inhalation in rats: deposition pattern and reaction of alveolar epithelium, and pulmonary macrophages. (doc. no. 19-2, at p…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · March 22, 2013 · in the opinion
Macek v. CBS Corporation (2013)
…Plaintiffs' exhibit 20 is a 1966 study commissioned by UCC revealing that rats had a more "severe reaction" to Calidria asbestos mined by UCC in California as compared to asbestos mined in Canada by Johns Manville…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 27, 2010 · in the opinion
Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. (2010)
…allergic reactions\]\]. To establish this claim, \[name of plaintiff\] must prove all of the following: \[¶\] 1. That \[name of defendant\] \[manufactured/distributed/sold\] the \[product\]; \[¶\] 2. That the \[product\] had potential \[risks/side effects/allergic reactions…