No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Search

9 results for “Reaction Department”

  1. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · December 29, 1988 · in the opinion

    Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1988)

    …pleaded that the Defendants' breach of these various duties (as well as the fact that these products precipitated great harm which was not a consequence of any unique or unforeseeable reaction of the user) caused Mr…

  2. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · March 5, 1986 · in the opinion

    Herber v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …concern. However, based upon the reaction of the Supreme Court of New Jersey when confronted with similar arguments, we do not believe that this concern would deter that Court from embracing the view here expressed. See…

  3. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 20, 1992 · in the opinion

    Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1992)

    …become imbedded in lung or other tissue. The reaction consists of the body "walling off" the foreign matter with fibrous cells such that it eventually produces scar-like tissue which builds up over many years. ..... Pulmonary…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · September 22, 1987 · in the opinion

    In re Asbestos Litigation (1987)

    …J., dissenting). Whatever may have been the reaction of the courts in earlier times, we are persuaded that the district court properly considered the common law of New Jersey to be within the scope of the…

  5. Court case · Missouri Court of Appeals · June 4, 1996 · in the opinion

    Nugent v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Inc. (1996)

    …During the 30 to 36 months period, however, definite indication of tissue reaction [\928] appeared in the lungs of animals inhaling Kaylo dust and therefore, I regret to say, our tentative conclusion quoted above must be…

  6. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 3, 1982 · in the opinion

    Staiano v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1982)

    …24 Wayne L.Rev. 1641 (1978) (British reaction to first breath rule announced in Cartledge). Other jurisdictions have viewed subjecting the plaintiff to exposure as a continuing tort and have adopted what may be called the…

  7. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · October 30, 2002 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois v. Gianotti (2002)

    …matters not usually reflected in a cold record. The judge is able to ascertain the demeanor of the witnesses and to note the reaction of the jurors and counsel to inadmissible matters. That is to say…

  8. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 10, 1992 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1992)

    …305 (1990) (footnote omitted) (Doctrinal Collapse). Here, where the relevant inquiry concerns the reactions of persons now deceased to hypothetical warnings, the proof of causation becomes more difficult or, depending on one's point of view…

  9. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · June 3, 1985 · in the opinion

    Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)

    …cumulative. Because inhaled fibers are not all exhaled, but some remain in the lungs and cause reactions there, the later inhalation of added amounts will cause injury that might not have occurred had exposure ceased. There…