Kowalski v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing toxic chemical exposure from asbestos exposure where, despite evidence of danger from direct exposure, there had been no knowledge of “risk simply through secondary exposure”
• distinguishing toxic chemical exposure from asbestos exposure where, despite evidence of danger from direct exposure, there had been no knowledge of “risk simply through secondary exposure”
• party need not have un derlying CERCLA action so long as statutory elements for relief are present in action for CERCLA damages
• “The plain reading of § 9658 in the context of the mandate which resulted in the SARA amendments suggests that the preemption of a state statute of limitations was passed as an additional remedy, not one confined to actual CERCLA actions.”
• “The plain reading of § 9658 in the context of the mandate which resulted in the SARA amendments suggests that the preemption of a state statute of limitations was passed as an additional remedy, not one confined to actual CERCLA actions.”
• “The plain reading of § 9658 in the context of the mandate which resulted in the SARA amendments suggests that the preemption of a state statute of limitations was passed as an additional remedy, not one confined to actual CERCLA actions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).