18 results for “Reaction Department”
-
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…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · November 18, 1993 · in the opinion
Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1993)
…in physical pain. Mr. Ben had been employed at the Petrotex Refinery in the labor department as an insulator. He worked on a daily basis as a sandblaster throughout his tenure at Petrotex, from 1958 until…
-
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\…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 24, 2021 · in the opinion
Sabetian v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (2021)
…defense counsel elicited testimony from Sabetian about his 1982 application to the United States Department of Justice's Immigration and Naturalization Service (immigration application). The immigration application directed Sabetian to list his "employment \[for the\] last…
-
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, 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…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · December 19, 2019 · in the opinion
Union Carbide Corporation v. Torres (2019)
…the inhalation of asbestos fibers and the penetration of the fibers through the air sac of the lung. He explained that the body's inflammatory reaction to the fibers causes genetic damage. As the damage accumulates…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · May 16, 1985 · in the opinion
Sheppard v. AC & S. Co. (1985)
…in lung or other tissue. The reaction consists of the body "walling off" the foreign matter with fibrous cells such that it eventually produces scar-like tissue which builds up over many years. Forty-Eight Insulations…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · November 12, 1990 · in the opinion
Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1990)
…Asbestos fibers, once inhaled, remain in place in the lung, causing a tissue reaction that is slowly progressive and irreversible. Typically, the disease does not manifest itself until years after initial exposure to asbestos fibers. The…
-
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 · Louisiana Supreme Court · April 13, 1999 · in the opinion
Ruckstuhl v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999)
…3201, listed specific activities by a defendant which would subject it to the personal jurisdiction of this state.\[2\] In reaction to [\885] the decision of the United States Supreme Court in World-Wide Volkswagen Corp…
-
Court case · Utah Supreme Court · November 18, 2021 · in the opinion
Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper, LLC (2021)
…and thereby injures another. In Jeffs, we found it foreseeable that negligently prescribing medications to a patient might result in the patient then injuring someone else in situations where the medications cause a psychotic reaction. Id. …
-
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…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 7, 1998 · in the opinion
ACandS v. Abate (1998)
…they may pierce through the smallest airways into the pleura. The fibers that reach the pleura cause a localized reaction which results in a deposit of scar tissue. When the scarring of the pleura is localized…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 27, 2010 · in the opinion
Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. (2010)
…allergic reactions\]\]. To establish this claim, \[name of plaintiff\] must prove all of the following: \[¶\] 1. That \[name of defendant\] \[manufactured/distributed/sold\] the \[product\]; \[¶\] 2. That the \[product\] had potential \[risks/side effects/allergic reactions…