Skip to main content

Sweeney v. General Printing, Inc.

Citations

  • 210 A.D.2d 865
  • 621 N.Y.S.2d 132
  • 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13275

How courts have described this case

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

  • granting summary judgment where “there is no evidence that the latter [injuries] were caused by a separate and distinct disease process from the former”
  • evolution of “ ‘low grade tumors’ ” into “more invasive tumors” necessitating bladder removal held not “separate and distinct disease process”
  • “separate and distinct disease processes may constitute different injuries” and give rise to two causes of action
  • “[T]he phrase ‘discovery of the injury’ necessarily contemplates something less than full awareness that one has been damaged as a result of exposure to a particular toxic substance.”
  • ʺ[T]he phrase ʹdiscovery of the injuryʹ necessarily contemplates something less than full awareness that one has been damaged as a result of exposure to a particular toxic substance.ʺ
  • ʺ[T]he phrase ʹdiscovery of the injuryʹ necessarily contemplates something less than full awareness that one has been damaged as a result of exposure to a particular toxic substance.ʺ

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Yesawich

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.