Search for: "In Re: Asbestos Products, et al"
Results 21 - 40
of 59
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jan 2014, 9:47 am
Jonathan Samet, et al., Institute of Medicine, Asbestos: Selected Health Effects (2006). [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 6:08 am
Furthermore, their suggestion that Gauley Bridge fits into their Marxist paradigm of corporate corruption of science (citing similar works by Michaels, Castleman, Rosner, et al.) ignores the robust debate from all sectors of society, including the scientific community, organized labor, political actors, industry, government, and academia. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 6:43 pm
Martin, et al., New York Evidence Handbook 318 (2d ed. 2002)). [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
Supp. 247 (1984), rev’d on other grounds, 816 F.2d 1417 (10th Cir. 1987) In re TMI Litig., 927 F. [read post]
2 May 2013, 9:23 am
They have discovered and built a perpetual motion machine — the asbestos litigation. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 1:09 pm
Didham, et al., “Suicide and Self-Harm Following Prescription of SSRIs and Other Antidepressants: Confounding By Indication,” 60 Br. [read post]
29 May 2012, 4:48 am
Pneumo Abex et al. [read post]
8 May 2012, 5:15 pm
In Federal Mogul Global Inc., et al., (No. 09-2230, Third Cir. [read post]
6 May 2012, 11:52 am
(citing and quoting Thomas Starkie, et al., A Practical Treatise of the Law of Evidence and Digest of Proofs in Civil and Criminal Proceedings vol. [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 11:27 am
Studies of medical error consistently find that the vast majority of patients injured by medical error do not file a claim (Weiler et al. 1993; Sloan et al. 1995; Andrews, 2006). [read post]
5 Apr 2012, 11:27 am
Studies of medical error consistently find that the vast majority of patients injured by medical error do not file a claim (Weiler et al. 1993; Sloan et al. 1995; Andrews, 2006). [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 5:36 pm
Minn. 2008)(noting that some but not all courts have concluded relative risks under two support finding expert witness’s opinion to be inadmissible) XYZ, et al. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 2:02 pm
Chesterton Inc., et al., No. [read post]
14 Feb 2012, 11:50 am
For the record – What is MDL 875--Asbestos Products Litigation? [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 7:13 pm
See Donna Stroup, et al., “Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: A Proposal for Reporting,” 283 J. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 9:11 am
Chubin, et al. at 10, Daubert v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 3:34 pm
(Flather, et al., 1994). [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 7:01 am
Since inception, class actions have allowed those who could not individually afford to sue, the opportunity to band together and share in the expense of trial.3 From civil rights cases,4 securities fraud,5 asbestos reforms,6 tobacco controls,7 environmental regulations,8 and breast implant litigation9—class actions have given a forum to the injured, the deceived and the segregated. [read post]
7 Jun 2011, 10:12 am
§ 20701 et seq., preempts state tort lawsuits involving asbestos. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 1:38 am
’” Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, et al. v. [read post]
