Search for: "In Re Maine Asbestos Cases"
Results 41 - 60
of 98
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2016, 12:48 pm
A recent case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court illustrates some of the pitfalls that can arise in asbestos litigation. [read post]
3 Mar 2016, 3:14 am
Gestring, who is handling the case, stated that the defendant was one of the owners of a warehouse located at 920 Exchange Street in Rochester. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 7:00 am
Below we turn to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the latter two cases, and identify some of the main issues likely to fall for decision by the Supreme Court. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
According to a Supreme Court case we read (which we didn’t bother to verify), those states are: Connecticut, Louisiana, Michigan, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and Washington. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 11:30 am
The main division wasn’t between comment k or nothing, but instead whether its preclusion of design defect strict liability for “unaviodably unsafe” products is “across the board” or “case by case. [read post]
8 Jan 2015, 9:44 am
Aug. 16, 2011).Maine: Richards v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
Examples are not driving a riding lawnmower parallel to a slope (because you’ll tip over) or only handling asbestos while using a respirator (because breathing asbestos can do nasty things to you). [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 1:59 pm
The case involved the allocation of loss for asbestos-related personal injury claims. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd., 1986 WL 69060, at *5-6 (N.D. [read post]
11 Apr 2014, 7:41 am
McGee, PartnerSeder & Chandler, LLP339 Main Street, 3rd FloorWorcester, MA01608©Kevin C. [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 6:53 am
While (as we’ve discussed here) we’ve seen a few lower court cases applying §6(c) in cases involving medical devices, Lance is the first case to apply it to a prescription drug, as well as the first state high court anywhere to adopt it − if that is indeed what the court has done, as the majority is somewhat tentative. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 11:46 am
Boston & Maine R.R., 96 Me. 207, 217–218, 52 A. 771, 774 (1902) (“Quantitative probability, however, is only the greater chance. [read post]
8 Jul 2012, 10:58 am
Asbestos Litig., 827 F. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 6:04 am
It is almost exclusively caused by some form of asbestos exposure, which in the vast majority of cases happened decades earlier. [read post]
30 May 2012, 11:05 am
" 2) "Cumulative exposure, on a probability basis, should thus be considered the main criterion for the attribution of a substantial contribution by asbestos to lung cancer risk. [read post]
29 May 2012, 4:48 am
See also In re Asbestos Prods. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 6:22 am
The defendants in this case argued that the doctrine of res judicata precluded this action. [read post]
18 Jan 2012, 4:10 am
The original for this post is The Future Of Asbestos Litigation And The 60,000 Mesothelioma Patients Yet To Be Diagnosed at Litigation & Trial.One of my main purposes of writing this blog is to dispel the myths that surround trial lawyers and personal injury law. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 4:49 am
The Court developed two main points about the common law. [read post]
21 Sep 2011, 4:20 am
Even a relatively ‘simple’ contamination case — like, for example, an asbestos case, where the science behind medical causation and treatment has been rock-solid for more than a generation — the plaintiffs’ lawyers out-of-pocket costs will typically run into six figures and can go much higher. [read post]
