The record
A published Missouri appellate opinion affirmed as modified a judgment against Johnson & Johnson in a talc-ovarian cancer case, and recites plaintiffs' evidence that the company knew its talc contained tremolite asbestos.
Claim scope
That internal corporate documents describing tremolite asbestos in the product, including the 1969 memorandum and the T.M. Thompson warning, are recounted in a published appellate opinion — the citable route to those documents. It further recounts that Dr. Seymour Lewin, 'Consultant to the FDA,' reported asbestos in samples in 1972, that McCrone confirmed tremolite, and that the company used the J4-1 test method while a pre-concentration method was known to it.
What this source does not establish
CRITICAL: this is the court's recitation of PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENCE under a standard of review that views evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict — it is NOT an independent judicial finding of fact that the product contained asbestos. The page must phrase it as 'evidence presented at trial and recounted by the appellate court,' never as 'the court found.'
Limitations
CourtListener cluster 4762917 has an EMPTY citations field; the reporter cite 608 S.W.3d 663 is confirmed by the published Third Circuit LTL opinion quoting it verbatim, plus the cert denial at 141 S. Ct. 2716. Direct citation-lookup POST returned 404. Disposition: 'We reverse the trial court's judgment in part, and affirm the trial court's judgment as modified under Rule 84.14' — a partial reversal on personal jurisdiction over non-resident plaintiffs, not a clean affirmance.
Source
Case Citation — Ingham v. Johnson & Johnson, 608 S.W.3d 663 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2716 (2021)