No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Search

15 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · July 24, 1979 · in the opinion

    Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos & Magnesia Materials Co. (1979)

    …defective product. See Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 69 S.Ct. 1018, 11 A.L.R.2d 252; Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. Barker, 228 F.2d 842; Brush Beryllium Co. v. Meckley, 284…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota · April 20, 1974 · in the opinion

    United States v. Reserve Mining Company (1974)

    …with applicable regulations, the effect on the work force would be minimal. The defendants' work force includes machinists, welders, electricians, engineers, and laborers whose services could be utilized in additional pipe and plant construction. The plight…

  3. Court case · North Carolina Court of Appeals · July 17, 1979

    Bullard v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1979)

    …lung cancer was caused by workplace asbestos exposure, because no expert said asbestos caused it and the evidence showed only an increased general risk or a possible contributing cause. Causation; Expert Testimony Worksites: Johns-Manville plant…

  4. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · September 19, 1973 · in the opinion

    Utter et al. v. Asten-Hill Mfg. Co. (1973)

    …exposed, in this industry, as he might very well be, to the common cold and that it is peculiar to the industry and not common to the general public." 203 Pa. Superior Ct. at 462, 201…

  5. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · November 21, 1978 · in the opinion

    Harig v. Johns-Manville Products (1978)

    …coupled with the peculiarly harsh consequences of adherence to the general rule of accrual from the date of the "wrong," prompted our predecessors to recognize the discovery principle in determining when a cause of action accrues…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · September 10, 1973 · in the opinion

    Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation (1973)

    …of the same danger. This inconsistency in the jury's verdicts, although puzzling, need not detain us. It has long been the rule that consistency in general verdicts is not required. Dunn v. United States, 1932…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit · March 14, 1975 · in the opinion

    Reserve Min. Co. v. Environmental Protection Agcy. (1975)

    …make certain waters unfit to drink even after chemical treatment; and WPC 26, a general effluent standard for Lake Superior incorporating the standards of WPC 15. Further, the court found that the discharge into Lake Superior…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit · September 24, 1975 · in the opinion

    Karjala v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1975)

    …Karjala began to feel a shortness of breath, congestion, a loss of appetite, and general weakness. Suspecting that he might have tuberculosis, he had his chest x-rayed. The x-ray showed no evidence of tuberculosis…

  9. Court case · Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court · May 25, 1972 · in the opinion

    Bambrick v. Asten Hill Mfg. Co. et al. (1972)

    …he meant asbestosis when he said asbestos exposure, as well as exceed our judicial prerogative. The General Assembly has limited recovery to death caused by asbestosis, not asbestos exposure. There is insufficient evidence upon which to…

  10. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · November 30, 1977 · in the opinion

    Bush v. Johns-Manville Products Corporation (1977)

    …298 (1976), construed the 1974 amendment as retroactive in nature because of its beneficent purpose and the general rule of liberally interpreting the Workers' Compensation Act. It also held that such retroactivity did not impair any…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · May 4, 1978 · in the opinion

    Ins. Co. of No. Am. v. Forty-Eight Insulations (1978)

    …lawsuits. D. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Cases dealing with statute of limitation issues are not applicable to this coverage problem. See, Tijsseling v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., 55 Cal.App.3d 623, 127 Cal…

  12. Court case · Kentucky Supreme Court · April 10, 1979 · in the opinion

    Louisville Trust Co. v. Johns-Manville Products (1979)

    …to run. The rule of Tomlinson is an exception to the general rule with its limitation being limited to malpractice cases.\[5\] The extent of the application of Tomlinson was irrelevant to the decision. It was…

  13. Court case · New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division · January 18, 1979 · in the opinion

    Weinberg v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp. (1979)

    …situation in which the parties have appeared and entered into opposition by virtue of the pleadings. As a general rule, the relevance of this procedural aspect to the situation where the movant has exclusive knowledge impels…

  14. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · November 21, 1979 · in the opinion

    Caudle-Hyatt, Inc. v. Mixon (1979)

    …husband's earnings. It is highly unlikely that the General Assembly intended to restrict the conclusive presumption of total dependency to instances where the spouse had demonstrated that he or she was wholly dependent. Such a…

  15. Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · November 28, 1978 · in the opinion

    Daniels v. Combustion Engineering, Inc. (1978)

    … and fifth, the legal existence of the first suit. "The general rules above laid down have been held applicable, notwithstanding the fact that one suit is at law and the other in equity. Because a deposition…