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

Search

14 results for “Reaction Department”

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · August 13, 1982 · in the opinion

    Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1982)

    …and a study to be published by the Labor Department estimates that at least 8,500 workers — perhaps as many as 10,000 — will die each year until the end of this century from asbestos-related…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · January 21, 1994 · in the opinion

    Tabolt v. Flintkote Co. (In re New York Asbestos Litigation, 1994)

    Flintkote's argument that this procedure provides a double recovery for inflation was rejected after thorough attention by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, Fourth Department, in Brown v. State, 184 A.D…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · January 27, 1984 · in the opinion

    Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)

    …Perhaps, even more pertinent is the reaction of the trial courts. In dealing with the precise dilemma faced by appellant herein, the Honorable Lois Forer of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia has stated: The…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 15, 1985 · in the opinion

    Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp. (1985)

    …to bar the proof for purposes of establishing mental anguish. Dartez's own testimony regarding his emotional reaction to the realization of the risks he now faces and Comstock's testimony as to what he told…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · August 17, 1998 · in the opinion

    Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1998)

    …the judge. When the proceedings resumed, the district court reprimanded plaintiffs' counsel. Pittsburgh Corning mentions adverse audience reaction on a couple of occasions, but the district court properly handled those matters. Neither of these occurrences, or…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · August 28, 1995 · in the opinion

    Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1995)

    …of cases which involve substantially the same questions of fact, as happens when large numbers of plaintiffs allege that they have developed similar illnesses in reaction to a particular toxic substance. See Fed.R.Civ.P…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · September 10, 1973 · in the opinion

    Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation (1973)

    …fibers, once inhaled, remain in place in the lung, causing a tissue reaction that is slowly progressive and apparently irreversible. Even if no additional asbestos fibers are inhaled, tissue changes may continue undetected for decades. By…

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · March 21, 1996

    Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. SS Co., Inc. (1996)

    …since diagnosis and cause were the central issues. It upheld the admission of the defense radiation experts and the redaction of mesothelioma references in records. It found no unfair judicial conduct and refused a new judge…

  12. Court case · Minnesota Supreme Court · May 14, 1982 · in the opinion

    DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (1982)

    …over recent articles carried in local and national newspapers concerning mesothelioma and stated that "unwise treatment of research data in public discussions could cause reactions which were not justified by the state of scientific knowledge." \ \ \ \ \ \ Industry…

  13. Court case · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · January 22, 1997 · in the opinion

    Sharpless v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1997)

    …obesity, asthma, emphysema and allergic reactions." In view of the above-stated principles, the court finds that it is compelled to review the contents of Dr. Altschuler's testimony quite carefully to determine (1) whether it…

  14. 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…