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

Search

4 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 · 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…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…