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 · Delaware Superior Court · November 16, 2011 · in the opinion

    Gordon v. Dana Companies (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2011)

    …because "you didn't just use off-brand parts on that type of equipment. That's something that we as a maintenance department did not — I mean, they didn't want any cut-rate parts."\[10\…

  3. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 17, 2017 · in the opinion

    Phillips v. Honeywell International Inc. (2017)

    …goal of installing brakes weakens the inference that Phillips reaction to a warning on the boxes of Bendix brakes would have been the same as his reaction to the warning on cigarette packaging when he started…

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · December 7, 2021 · in the opinion

    Jones v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2021)

    …Id. Therefore, he did not anticipate any unfavorable reaction. Id. He further indicated that he would be unable to attend the meeting at Johns-Manville and requested that Brown represent American Brake Shoe Company in connection…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 29, 2007 · in the opinion

    Bakkie v. Union Carbide Corporation (2007)

    …You mix them together. That starts the curing. That starts the chemical reaction for it to solidify. And we know that Mr. Bakkie was around the nitrogen gas that topped off the barrels of OPM because…

  7. Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · September 16, 2019 · in the opinion

    Palmer v. Walker Jamar Company (2019)

    …district court noted, appellate courts have previously determined legislative amendments as clarifications when there is a "prompt reaction to a court's construction of a statute" with which the legislature disagrees. In Hoben v. City of…

  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 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · August 11, 2022 · in the opinion

    Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022)

    …In other words, the study found that a person could be exposed to a cumulative annual exposure of up to between 208 and 415 fibers per cubic centimeter before experiencing an observable adverse reaction. (See June…

  10. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · November 15, 1994 · in the opinion

    Becker v. Baron Bros. (1994)

    …motions, the court stated that its basis for ruling that asbestos products without warnings are defective as a matter of law was "pretty much \ \ \ judicial gut reaction and instinct as well as Beshada." On appeal, the…

  11. Court case · Missouri Court of Appeals · June 4, 1996 · in the opinion

    Nugent v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Inc. (1996)

    …During the 30 to 36 months period, however, definite indication of tissue reaction [\928] appeared in the lungs of animals inhaling Kaylo dust and therefore, I regret to say, our tentative conclusion quoted above must be…

  12. Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 21, 2002 · in the opinion

    Ballard v. Armstrong World Indus. (Matter of Seventh Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 2002)

    …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 \ \ \ In such circumstances, consolidation permits the federal court to…

  13. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · June 29, 2018 · in the opinion

    Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Company (2018)

    …of the front vehicle in a four-vehicle collision, sued the driver of the rear-most car, Hodes, who had "caus\[ed\] a chain reaction collision" leading to her injury. 363 N.J. Super. at 601…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · May 11, 2023 · in the opinion

    Parker Hannifin Corp. v. Standard Motor Products, Inc. (2023)

    …promptly meet and confer to determine what, if any, portions of this Memorandum Opinion & Order warrant redaction. By no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order, the parties shall file a Joint…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · December 14, 2006 · in the opinion

    Quarles v. Advocate Mines Limited (2006)

    …something beyond asbestosis, and with asbestosis, you see scarring not seen with the other forms. With the scarring and other complications of asbestos, particularly pleural reactions, come a greater risk of developing cancer. Also, while age…

  16. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · July 21, 2010 · in the opinion

    Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2010)

    …excessive cigarette smoking, heart disease, obesity, asthma, emphysema and allergic reactions. 1171 Id., at 687 n. 2. The condition the majority herein describes as compensable injury is "shortness of breath." Majority Op., at 1164. Despite Simmons…