190 Md. App. 217 - John Crane, Inc. v. Linkus’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
2 district · 6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership · Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos · Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership · Buck v. Cam's Broadloom Rugs, Inc. · Gregg v. VJ Auto Parts, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We conclude that lay testimony describing the amount of dust created by handling the products in question, coupled with expert testimony describing the dose response relationship and the lack of a safe threshold of exposure (above ambient air levels), was sufficient to create a jury question. There was lay testimony that appellee worked with appellant’s products regularly and frequently and the products produced considerable visible dust. Given the testimony as to the relatively high asbestos content of appellant’s [product], and the fact that it was unencapsulated or otherwise treated, the jury could reasonably infer that the products emitted asbestos fibers in sufficient quantities to cause mesothelioma. Appellee produced expert testimony that, assuming that appellee worked with appellant’s products, and assuming that the products emitted respirable fibers, the exposure was a substantial factor, not dependent on a comparative analysis of other products.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.