4 results for “Reaction Department”
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…