Search for: "Asbestos Products Liability v."
Results 341 - 360
of 552
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jan 2012, 2:15 am
See O'Neil v. [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 8:44 pm
Crane Co., the California Supreme Court this past week rejected asbestos liability for manufacturers whose products are added by third parties to other products that contain asbestos. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 8:47 am
So we took a look at the attached case, O’Neil v. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 7:06 am
This trend in asbestos cases is not dissimiliar from those pharmaceutical product liability cases in which the plaintiffs seek to hold a brand name drug manufacturer liable, whose product was never taken by the injured party, for injuries allegedly caused by a generic manufacturer's product. [read post]
13 Jan 2012, 5:28 am
See O'Neil v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 12:17 pm
Today, in O’Neill v. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 3:14 pm
The jury found that Chevron Phillips and Union Carbide were liable to Brown in this product liability case, for defectively designing their product and failure to provide an adequate warning. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 11:22 am
Co. v. [read post]
7 Dec 2011, 8:52 am
Read the decision: Russo v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 6:29 am
Law & Policy 17 (2005) (“Major support for SKAPP is provided by the Common Benefit Trust, a fund established pursuant to a court order in the Silicone Gel Breast Implant Products Liability Litigation. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 12:06 pm
The California Supreme Court heard oral argument in O’Neil v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 6:18 am
Railroad Friction Products Corp., which I previewed earlier this week. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 8:11 am
Two, the court lifts a major corporation back on the hook for asbestos claims despite the mighty efforts of the Texas Civil Justice League, the Product Liability Advisory Council, and the Texas Attorney General's office. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 4:01 pm
That products liability case presents the question whether the defendants, who manufactured valves and pumps that the Navy installed on its ships in the 1940’s, can be strictly liable for injuries that allegedly occurred when a Navy seaman was exposed in the 1960’s to asbestos fibers released from insulation and sealants that the Navy used in conjunction with the defendants’ valves and pumps. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 1:35 pm
Co. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 10:00 am
In Moeller v. [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 7:27 pm
See, e.g., Anderson v. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 5:15 pm
To reiterate: The release of asbestos from a product into the air people breathe constitutes a health hazard for which no level of exposure is safe. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 9:11 am
Chubin, et al. at 10, Daubert v. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 8:36 am
ASBESTOS. [read post]
