Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The U.S. Flammable Fabrics Act is an act that was passed in 1953 to regulate the manufacture of highly flammable clothing. [1] [2] It was enacted after years of rayon viscose fabrics being proven to be the primary cause of quick starting, high temperature fires as well as having the secondary effect of causing illnesses in factory workers. [3]
These lists contain detailed tables about each term since 1999, including which justices filed the court's opinion, dissenting and concurring opinions in each case, and information about justices joining opinions. The tables conclude with term statistics and concordance data.
1953 in United States case law (20 P) 1953 crimes in the United States (1 C, 1 P) L. 1953 U.S. legislative sessions (8 P) ... U.S. Flammable Fabrics Act
The US enacted the Flammable Fabrics Act passed in 1953 after which, flame retardants were mandated to be added to many children's items, including pajamas. While flame retardants are shown to decrease the risk of burn injuries in children, the risks of thyroid disruption as well as physical and cognitive developmental delays, are not outweighed.
Fire-retardant fabrics are normally treated to different British Standards; normally this depends on the end usage of the fabrics. BS 476 is a fire treatment for fabrics that are normally for wall hanging, and must only be used as for that purpose, where as CRIB 5 is a fabric fire treatment for upholstery and must only be used for furnishing ...
The National Banking Act of February 25, 1863, Sess. 3, ch. 58, was the 58th Act of the third session of the 37th Congress. The Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 of October 16, 2004, Pub. L. 108–332 (text) (PDF) , 118 Stat. 1282 , was the 332nd Act of Congress (statute) passed in the 108th Congress.
The appellant brought the action under the Families Compensation Act (R.S. of B.C. 1948, c. 116) on her own behalf and on behalf of the children and step-children of the deceased, and alleged that her husband's death was caused by the negligence of the motorman, for which the Respondent Company was responsible.
Case history; Prior: Judgments entered in favor of the plaintiffs upheld, Reynolds v.United States, 192 F.2d 987 (3d Cir. 1951); cert. granted, 343 U.S. 918 (1952).: Holding; In this case, there was a valid claim of privilege under Rule 34; and a judgment based under Rule 37 on refusal to produce the documents subjected the United States to liability to which Congress did not consent by the ...