Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. Janssens

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the “test for admissibility does not depend on any factors affecting motive for cross-examination other than the existence of substantial similarity of issues giving rise to a similar motive to develop the testimony through cross-examination”
• dealing with Johns-Manville’s efforts to cover up information it had about the health hazards of asbestos
• finding evidence admissible in asbestosis case as “relevant to [the defendant’s] continuing duty to warn and its breach thereof,” and that a “continuing duty to warn was properly at issue in the trial court under the plaintiffs’ general allegations of negligent failure to warn”
• when deposition meets the requirements of either the rule of civil procedure or the evidentiary rule, it is admissible
• “Evidence of repetition and concealment of offensive conduct after it initially occurs is indicative of malice or evil intent sufficient to support punitive damages.”
• “highly questionable . . . that deposition testimony can be used under rule 1.330 unless offered in the same judicial proceeding in which it was originally taken” At 259

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).