Search for: "Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp." Results 1 - 20 of 29
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Apr 2015, 10:39 am by L. John Bird
  The Court cited to a number of cases in its decision, primarily Manville Corp. v. [read post]
29 May 2016, 9:38 am by Schachtman
  Showing that Johns Manville was well aware of the extraordinarily great hazard of crocidolite would have been relatively easy to do from past transcripts, articles, speeches, and litigation conduct of the Johns Manville companies. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:39 pm by Bexis
The Court reasoned that Congress had considered the problem of vaccine-induced injuries and provided a remedy that does not require the injured party to identify a manufacturer. [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 2:24 am by Schachtman
Starting in 1964, Johns-Manville Corporation, the major manufacturer of asbestos-containing insulation, started warning. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
Xerox Corp., 718 P.2d 929 (Alaska 1986), the court was “persuaded by the comments to the Restatement (Second) of Torts §500, which define reckless disregard of safety. [read post]
9 Jun 2009, 1:22 am
Or maybe, like her predecessors during the Depression in the Schechter Poultry Corp. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2014, 9:47 am by Schachtman
Gelman does not report what diseases were involved in the 17 claims, arising out of the Paterson factory that used mostly amosite asbestos from South Africa. [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 12:09 pm by Schachtman
Bartrip, “Irving John Selikoff and the Strange Case of the Missing Medical Degrees,” 58 J. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am by Schachtman
Everest Minerals Corp., 362 F. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 2:30 pm by Bexis
JohnsManville Corp., 539 A.2d 871 (1988), where the defendants were asbestos manufacturers headquartered in Pennsylvania and the plaintiff was a New Jersey resident injured, mostly, in New Jersey (but also a little in Pennsylvania). [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am by Schachtman
This point again is correct, but the Manual does not come to terms with the challenge often made to what I call the assumption of stochastic risk. [read post]