> ... that is literally "the Wisconsin case" I mentioned in my post? A sorry. I know it as the Missouri case because it was a state ruling in Missouri. > Look

> ... that is literally "the Wisconsin case" I mentioned in my post? A sorry. I know it as the Missouri case because it was a state ruling in Missouri. > Look: I said a whole bunch of these cases don't even involve asbestos. That is true. It's a matter of record and if you want to do some basic research, you will discover that: these are the earlier talc cases from the 2013-2016 timeframe. Can you show me, because I don't see that?