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

Search

20 results for “Reaction Department”

  1. Court case · New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division · January 16, 2003

    Matter of O'malley v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York (2003)

    …Third Department, reversed. It noted that nobody disputed the roughly 25 years of asbestos exposure at work. Gould relied on that exposure and on features in the medical records, including a tissue reaction in the biopsy…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · June 5, 1995 · in the opinion

    Ripa v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1995)

    …Vorwald to Hazard suggesting that Kaylo produced an asbestosis-like reaction in the lungs and that "every precaution should be taken to minimize exposure of industrial employees." (9) The final confidential January 1952 project report concluding…

  4. 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…

  5. 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\…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  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 · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · January 21, 1985 · in the opinion

    Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)

    …and evokes the strongest of emotions. This prejudice must be coupled with the lack of effectiveness of any limiting instruction to eliminate the emotional reaction from the minds of the jury. Looking just at the first…

  13. 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…

  14. 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. …

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 16, 2008 · in the opinion

    Clemmer v. John Crane, Inc. (2008)

    …trial by video deposition because he was too ill to travel. The record established that Clemmer had recently undergone a long course of chemotherapy and had suffered a severe allergic reaction. At the time of trial…

  16. 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…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama · August 30, 2013 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (2013)

    …are not stricken (and motions to strike should not be filed in federal court) as a kneejerk reaction whenever a litigant is unhappy with either the contents of an exhibit or the other side's arguments…

  18. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · December 15, 2008 · in the opinion

    Sarkozy v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (2008)

    …Riegel even beyond the claimed date of 1977. The judge did not allow redaction of the sales strategy information because "there's an inference to be made from that, that they were pushing the asbestos felt…

  19. 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…

  20. Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · June 30, 2015 · in the opinion

    Russell v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (2015)

    …throat as well.... He went on to answer the following question about both asbestos and tobacco smoke: Q. Do the larynx and the oropharynx have the same reactions to carcinogens? A. Can they both become cancerous…