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

Search

14 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · October 25, 1983 · in the opinion

    Froud v. Celotex Corp. (1983)

    …2d 199, 214-15, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 1595-96 (Black, J., dissenting); General Dynamics Corp., Electric Boat Division, v. Benefits Review Board (2d Cir.1977), 565 F.2d 208, 212; Williams v. Ray (1978), 146…

  2. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · April 19, 1982 · in the opinion

    Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1982)

    …Rather, defendants state, the cost "will be borne by the public at large and reflected in a general, across the board increase in premiums to compensate for unanticipated risks." There is some truth in this assertion…

  3. Court case · Minnesota Supreme Court · May 14, 1982 · in the opinion

    DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (1982)

    …the court concluded that because the tolling provisions of the general limitations statute were in existence prior to the enactment of the wrongful death statute the legislature "could not possibly have had in mind that the…

  4. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · February 5, 1985 · in the opinion

    Meehan v. Celotex Corp. (1985)

    …of the negligent act. Indeed, as Gaboury itself says: "In determining the proper forum in which to bring suit under the general statute fixing venue where the cause of action \arose', or \accrued', the \injury occurred…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · March 13, 1981 · in the opinion

    Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)

    …to be persuaded that the choice of law made in Flatt is correct. That is, under any standard, federal law applies. Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 [\1361] (5th Cir. 1975); Willis v…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · November 17, 1988 · in the opinion

    Adkins v. GAF Corp. (1988)

    …sold by ACL is processed raw asbestos fiber. Asbestos exposure causes asbestosis. This fact was general knowledge in the asbestos industry in the State of Ohio at least after 1945. Not every exposure to asbestos, however…

  7. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · December 22, 1989 · in the opinion

    Sholtis v. American Cyanamid Co. (1989)

    …theory of non-identification liability is acceptable in New Jersey. \[9\] The court "reserve\[d\] decision on the general appropriateness of including products with different degrees of risk in a market-share analysis." 116 N.J…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia · January 26, 1982 · in the opinion

    Starling v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. (1982)

    …The label, intentional tort, is merely a general descriptive term for specific types of tortious conduct which share the common element that the actor intended to injure the object of his action. Prosser, Law of Torts…

  9. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · July 27, 1988 · in the opinion

    Blazek v. Nicolet, Inc. (1988)

    …We disagree. • 1 The general intent of statutes of repose is to "terminate the possibility of liability after a defined period of time, regardless of a potential plaintiff's lack of knowledge of his cause of…

  10. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · April 13, 1989 · in the opinion

    Kaiser v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1989)

    …late 1985 or early 1986 that he suffered from asbestosis. The Kaisers filed this lawsuit seeking general and special damages for Kaiser's asbestos-related injuries on August 15, 1986. III. All parties accept in their…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois · October 7, 1983 · in the opinion

    Hobby v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983)

    …110, Paragraph 13-203. Paragraph 13-203 in effect overruled a long line of Illinois cases holding that actions for loss of consortium were governed by the general five year statute of limitations. In the case…

  12. Court case · New York Court of Appeals · October 29, 1981 · in the opinion

    Matter of Steinhardt v. JohnsManville Corp. (1981)

    …such claims are diligently and expeditiously pursued. An exception to the general period of limitation rule is required when the pathological effect of an injury occurs without perceptible trauma, and the victim is blamelessly ignorant of…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · February 5, 1986 · in the opinion

    Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1986)

    …The purpose of class actions is to conserve "the resources of both the courts and the parties by permitting an issue potentially affecting every \[class member\] to be litigated in an economical fashion." General Telephone Co…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · September 11, 1986 · in the opinion

    Vigiolto v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …Applicable Law. We begin with the proposition that in a tort action, as a general rule, proof that a [\1457] specific defendant caused the plaintiff's harm is a prerequisite to that defendant's liability to…