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

Search

18 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 · 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…

  3. 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\…

  4. 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…

  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 · Louisiana Court of Appeals · March 28, 2001 · in the opinion

    Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (2001)

    …asbestos fibers, once inhaled, remain in place in the lung, causing a tissue reaction that is slowly progressive and apparently irreversible. Even if no additional fibers are inhaled, tissue damage may continue undetected for decades. Furthermore…

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 26, 2012 · in the opinion

    Georgia-Pacific v. Farrar (2012)

    …Md. at 726. The complaint alleged that Ms. Crews "suffered a hypoglycemic reaction and experienced a \blackout' causing her to lose control of her vehicle" and strike the vehicle driven by Mr. Gourdine, causing his death…

  10. 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…

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. 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. …

  14. 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…

  15. 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…

  16. 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…

  17. 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…

  18. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 10, 1992 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1992)

    …305 (1990) (footnote omitted) (Doctrinal Collapse). Here, where the relevant inquiry concerns the reactions of persons now deceased to hypothetical warnings, the proof of causation becomes more difficult or, depending on one's point of view…