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

Search

16 results for “Reaction Department”

  1. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · August 28, 1996 · in the opinion

    Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett (1996)

    …effect. That OCF had direct knowledge of the hazardous nature of asbestos was evident in 1941, when one of the lawyers in its Legal and Patent Department, having received a letter from a Saranac Doctor, expressed…

  2. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · May 9, 1991 · in the opinion

    Wehmeier v. Unr Industries, Inc. (1991)

    …On redirect, Abrams stated that, assuming (1) Cochran worked with amosite asbestos in the pipe department at the plant; and (2) Manville delivered 325 tons of chrysotile asbestos to the plant, Cochran could have inhaled some…

  3. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · September 18, 2013 · in the opinion

    Gillenwater v. Honeywell Intern., Inc. (2013)

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

  4. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · June 5, 1995 · in the opinion

    Ripa v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1995)

    …Vorwald to Hazard suggesting that Kaylo produced an asbestosis-like reaction in the lungs and that "every precaution should be taken to minimize exposure of industrial employees." (9) The final confidential January 1952 project report concluding…

  5. 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…

  6. Court case · Florida Supreme Court · August 26, 1999 · in the opinion

    Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard (1999)

    …liable for punitive damages.\[1\] During the punitive damages portion of the trial, Ballard presented evidence as to the company's financial position and reaction concerning the asbestos litigation. The evidence included a 1996 Fact Sheet…

  7. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · January 10, 1992 · in the opinion

    Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Watson (1992)

    …After reviewing these options, the memorandum states: If \[the union's\] reaction is unfavorable, the way is opened to spread word among the locals about the refusal of the Union officials to make \[insurance protection and…

  8. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 14, 1999 · in the opinion

    Coward v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999)

    …supra 671 A.2d at 1155 (reasoning that plaintiff injured by adverse reaction to prescription drug could not demonstrate causal connection between injury and manufacturer's allegedly deficient warning because plaintiff's treating physician testified that…

  9. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · June 5, 1995 · in the opinion

    Schiavo v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1995)

    …any error, as opposed to the jurors' normal reaction to a graphic exposure to the effects of advanced mesothelioma. While there is no New Jersey case specifically authorizing a "day in the life" tape, such tapes…

  10. 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…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin · January 9, 1981 · in the opinion

    Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1981)

    …because of the internal reaction to asbestos fibers lodged in the lungs. An uncontradicted affidavit on file prepared by Dr. Nathan Grossman, an expert retained by the plaintiffs, establishes that the reaction of persons exposed to…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · California Supreme Court · August 18, 1997 · in the opinion

    Buttram v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1997)

    …or inhalation of asbestos fibers, because many who are exposed will never suffer a compensable injury. Neither would a nondetrimental physiological reaction to asbestos exposure constitute accrual. On the other hand, under this definition a cause…

  14. 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…

  15. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · March 22, 2000 · in the opinion

    Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co. (2000)

    …obesity, asthma, emphysema and allergic reactions. All three appellant-husbands smoked cigarettes at some point in their lives and the record reflects that appellant Watkins is overweight and suffers from heart problems. Taylor, 666 A.2d…

  16. 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…