22 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · January 31, 1986 · in the opinion
Knauer v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)
…federal judiciary an equal power, and certainly no such judicial power could reasonably be inferred from the grant of authority to the Supreme Court to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure. When matters of state…
-
Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · October 25, 1989 · in the opinion
Board of Education v. A, C & S, Inc. (1989)
…the defendant (Sawyer, 89 Ill.2d at 384 (real estate brokers must follow the regulations created by the Department of Registration and Education); Heimgaertner v. Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Co. (1955), 6 Ill.2d 152, 153-54 …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Colorado · March 13, 1989 · in the opinion
Miller v. Celotex Corp. (1989)
…defendants. I conclude that plaintiff has failed to present sufficient persuasive evidence for a reasonable jury to rule in his favor on the running of the statute of limitations. See Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith…
-
Court case · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · August 24, 1989 · in the opinion
District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation (1989)
…hospitals, and government offices, are for the general use of the public, and hundreds or even thousands of people pass through each of them every day. Any child who grows up in the District and attends…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · March 27, 1989 · in the opinion
Dube v. Pittsburgh Corning (1989)
…768 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir.1985) (relying in part on statute authorizing Surgeon General to release test data "at such times and to such extent as \[he\] may determine to be [\799] in the public…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · September 22, 1987
In re Asbestos Litigation (1987)
Asbestos manufacturers defending personal injury suits in the federal district court in New Jersey challenged a New Jersey Supreme Court rule. Under Beshada and later cases, asbestos defendants could not use the "state-of-the-art" defense, which…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · February 27, 1986
Kisor v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)
…in the 1940s and 1950s, and argued that it could not be liable for a danger it did not know about. The jury returned a general verdict for Owens-Illinois. The Ninth Circuit, applying Washington law…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · November 28, 1988 · in the opinion
Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1988)
…113 (3d Cir.1985) (evidence of general use of Pittsburgh Corning's Unibestos at job site was sufficient to allow jury to find Pittsburgh Corning to be a factor in causing the plaintiff's injury). \[13…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Kansas · August 19, 1986 · in the opinion
Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1986)
…the cause in fact of his injuries does not undermine the principle that a defendant should only be held responsible for the damage it caused. As long as a plaintiff can prove general causation, i.e.…
-
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…
-
Court case · Ohio Supreme Court · October 14, 1987 · in the opinion
Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1987)
…it is important to understand that both alternative liability and market-share liability are exceptions to the general rule that a plaintiff has to prove an injury was caused by the negligence of a particular defendant…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin · January 9, 1981 · in the opinion
Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1981)
…one of the occasional hardships necessarily incident to a law arbitrarily making legal remedies contingent on mere lapse of time.'"' (Emphasis added.)" Applying the general rules set forth above on interpretation of Wisconsin statutes of limitations…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 15, 1985 · in the opinion
Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp. (1985)
…any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However…
-
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…