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

Search

5 results for “Reaction Department”

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · March 20, 1990 · in the opinion

    Johnson v. Celotex Corp. (1990)

    …test. I imagine you had some reaction to what he said to you. THE WITNESS: He just said he seen \[sic\] some spots on the X-ray. THE COURT: Did you react to that or no…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · July 18, 1984 · in the opinion

    Laster v. Celotex Corp. (1984)

    …ed., 3d ed. 1984) (asbestos "dust particles must be less than 100 micra in size" to be inhaled); Califano, Appendix to Asbestos Law: Victim's Rights and Industry Reaction, 330 Annals N.Y. Acad.Sci. 266…

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · Tennessee Supreme Court · September 10, 1990 · in the opinion

    Potts v. Celotex Corp. (1990)

    …drug); Martinez-Ferrer v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 105 Cal. App.3d 316, 164 Cal. Rptr. 591 (1980) (acute allergic reactions and cataracts caused by drug); cf. Anderson v. Sybron Corp., 165 Ga. App. 566, 567-568…