Search for: "In re: Asbesto Products"
Results 321 - 340
of 542
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 May 2012, 11:52 am
For instance, in the litigation over claims that asbestos causes colorectal cancer, plaintiffs had only a relative risk statistic to support their desired inference that asbestos had caused their colorectal cancers. [read post]
4 May 2012, 12:46 pm
The case is In re Quigley Co., 04-15739, U.S. [read post]
4 May 2012, 12:06 pm
So, if standards of proof could just be lowered the class action mechanism would expose potential defendants to existential liability risks for harms they probably didn't cause (see pg. 6) so that vast sums could be extracted from them and the production of synthetic chemicals would be thereby curtailed or eliminated. [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 7:48 am
The case is called In re Quigley Company Inc, U.S. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 10:16 am
Others worked as mechanics, builders, or trade laborers who were exposed through the many products that contained asbestos. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 11:27 am
Business Group Propaganda is Polluting the Product Liability Issue. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 11:27 am
Business Group Propaganda is Polluting the Product Liability Issue. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 8:55 am
Details on Avondale shipyards asbestos exposure were added to the firm’s mesothelioma site; the Yaz side effects and De Puy hip replacement sites were also updated. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 3:00 am
Res. 389) was agreed to. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 5:00 am
A couple of weeks ago – yeah, that’s right, on February 29 – the Supreme Court issued a ruling preempting asbestos product liability claims in Kurns v. [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 2:20 pm
Kurns holds that the Locomotive Inspection Act ("LIA") preempts a railroad engine repair worker's state-law products liability claim to recover for mesothelioma caused by asbestos in the brake lining of railroad cars. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 4:00 pm
Here at the Simmons Firm, we're looking forward to passage of the resolution. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 4:00 pm
Here at the Simmons Firm, we're looking forward to passage of the resolution. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 5:36 pm
Del. 2006) (requiring showing of relative risk greater than two to support property damage claims based on unreasonable risks from asbestos insulation products). [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 2:02 pm
Courts have to consider the impact of the statute of limitations, res judicata, and the pros and cons of encouraging premature filings relating to the mere risk of future disease or of allowing a plaintiff to, in a sense, split a cause of action into separate claims arising from the same product, same exposure, and same alleged conduct of the defendant. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 10:31 am
Pa. 1996), rev’d, 148 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 1997) Asbestos In re Joint E. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 6:00 am
Well, you're not alone; most Americans don't. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 4:26 am
Attempts by the applicants to re-open the case were in due course dismissed, principally on the grounds that this mistake of fact by the HSE, and hence by the Court, was not part of the essential reasoning of the court. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 11:50 am
For the record – What is MDL 875--Asbestos Products Litigation? [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 8:55 am
In so doing, the Court re-affirmed the general rules that a manufacturer cannot be held strictly liable for defects in another entity’s product, and that a manufacturer has no duty to warn of risks arising from another manufacturer’s products. [read post]
