Token Carpentry, Inc. v. Hornik

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “a plaintiff who has not tested seropositive must offer proof of ‘actual exposure’ ” for cause of action due to fear of AIDS
• requiring that plaintiff prove not only that blood or fluid was in fact transferred from HIV-positive person but also existence of scientifically accepted method of transmission of the virus
• requiring proof of actual exposure, that is, \proof of both a scientifically-accepted method of transmission of the virus (in this case a needle puncture) and that the source of the allegedly transmitted blood or fluid was in fact HIV-positive (in this case the unfortunate infant\)
• requiring proof of actual exposure, that is, \proof of both a scientifically-accepted method of transmission of the virus (in this case a needle puncture) and that the source of the allegedly transmitted blood or fluid was in fact HIV-positive (in this case the unfortunate infant\
• \The fear of contracting AIDS depends not only upon the likelihood that the virus was transmitted during a specific incident but also upon the likelihood that infection will develop.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).