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

Search

427 results for “General Electric”, page 18 of 22

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 23, 1984 · in the opinion

    Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984)

    …a "less desirable longshoreman" in the future. Id. at 668. Bonura is inapposite to the case at bar. Bonura was decided under general maritime law, not Louisiana law. Furthermore, the instant record does not support an…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · July 1, 1982 · in the opinion

    Amader v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1982)

    …Trust Co. v. Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co., 411 F.2d 88, 92-95 (3d Cir. 1969). Cf., Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908, 96 S…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · June 3, 1985 · in the opinion

    Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)

    …Court has expressly held, in Turner v. General Motors Corporation,\[36\] that, although evidence of the expectations of the ordinary consumer and the care of a prudent manufacturer may be introduced at trial, "henceforth in the…

  6. Court case · Michigan Supreme Court · December 29, 1986 · in the opinion

    Larson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1986)

    …The general position is that "\[t\]he only practical time when the cause of action can be deemed to have accrued is the time when the plaintiff knows or should have known that he had asbestosis…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · July 31, 1985 · in the opinion

    Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec v. Am. Home Assur. Co. (1985)

    …While all have held for the insureds, most commonly in declaratory judgment actions seeking to clarify the parties' rights and obligations under Comprehensive General Liability (CGL) policies, the courts have offered conflicting interpretations of the manner…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · June 11, 1984 · in the opinion

    Hansen v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1984)

    …Navy during the Korean conflict and that he was classified as a pipefitter, but that his job was more properly characterized as a general handyman. Most of the pipefitting work was done on shore by others…

  9. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · May 12, 1983 · in the opinion

    Large v. Bucyrus-Erie Co. (1983)

    …The court affirmed its general rule that the statute runs from the date of the injury and stated that the mere fact that the physician-patient relationship survived did not mean a cause of action did…

  10. 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…

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · August 11, 1986 · in the opinion

    Shelly v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …those injured "are by coincidence employees but at the time of injury are not engaged in the business of the employer and are in their independent capacities as members of the general public."). In our view…

  12. Court case · Arkansas Court of Appeals · April 3, 1985 · in the opinion

    Alcoa v. Vann (1985)

    … 81-1314(5)(iii) (Repl. 1976) provides: No compensation shall be payable for any ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed. These statutes require that a causal connection between the claimant's…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit · October 1, 1981 · in the opinion

    Keene Corp. v. Ins. Co. of North America (1981)

    …Jaeger 1959). An insurance contract represents an exchange of an uncertain loss for a certain loss. In a comprehensive general liability insurance policy, the uncertain loss is the possibility of incurring legal liability, and the certain…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island · September 7, 1983 · in the opinion

    Westfall v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels (1983)

    …45 S.Ct. at 613. This Court finds it unnecessary to reach the constitutionality of the 1982 amendment, either in general, or as applied to the facts of this particular case, in that the Plaintiff's…

  15. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · May 10, 1988 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. US (1988)

    …the LHWCA; and (2) under the LHWCA, Eagle-Picher need not satisfy the general admiralty jurisdiction requirement that the underlying wrong had a significant relationship (i.e., a nexus) to a traditional maritime activity. Executive Jet…

  16. Court case · Arizona Court of Appeals · May 7, 1987 · in the opinion

    DeStories v. City of Phoenix (1987)

    …§ 54 at 361, 363. Only a handful of courts have permitted a general negligence claim for infliction of serious emotional distress absent physical injury or illness. Id., at 364-65. Arizona adheres to the majority rule…

  17. Court case · Washington Supreme Court · April 27, 1989 · in the opinion

    Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp. (1989)

    …of Trial Lawyers of America; Richard H. Robblee on behalf of United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices, amici curiae for appellants. [\638] Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General, Michael E. Tardif, Senior Assistant, and Michael Madden, Assistant…

  18. Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · October 26, 1982 · in the opinion

    Bunker v. National Gypsum Co. (1982)

    …validity of that limitation, this Court held: "We recognize the general rule that the legislature is the primary judge as to whether the time allowed by a statute of limitations is reasonable. Although the determination of…

  19. Court case · Michigan Court of Appeals · January 23, 1985 · in the opinion

    Larson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)

    …F Supp 674, fn 4. See also Jackson v Johns-Manville Sales Corp, 727 F2d 506 (CA 5, 1984). In Funk v General Motors Corp, 392 Mich 91, 104; 220 NW2d 641 (1974), the Supreme Court…

  20. 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…