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 20 of 22

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 16, 1987 · in the opinion

    Hughes v. Western MacArthur Co. (1987)

    …issues and to apprise the defendant of the basis on which the plaintiff seeks recovery. (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211-212 \[197 Cal. Rptr. 783…

  2. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · January 17, 1989 · in the opinion

    Falk v. Keene Corporation (1989)

    …effects of human exposure to asbestos. Initially, defendant Raymark reserved "the right to direct and ... to use the general information \[from Dr. Demopoulos's testimony\] in closing argument." Once, however, it was apparent that appellants sought…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 7, 1984 · in the opinion

    Asbestos Information Ass'n/North America v. Osha (1984)

    …in 1980, the Supreme Court rejected the proposition that such a general policy may serve as the basis for any rule, and held that OSHA must make an actual finding that the workplace is unsafe before…

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit · July 30, 1982 · in the opinion

    Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …first action may expressly reserve plaintiff's right to maintain second action). \[35\] Johns-Manville has catalogued an impressive array of court decisions exemplifying the general res judicata rule against splitting an indivisible cause of action…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · April 13, 1982 · in the opinion

    Director, Office OF Workers'comp. v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. (1982)

    …Corp. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently has held that the Director has standing to appeal because of his general administrative responsibility and his financial interest in the special fund…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · June 26, 1985 · in the opinion

    Shuman v. United States (1985)

    …at 2674, we believe that the Court's unanimous opinion in Varig Airlines signaled that a more uniform and linear approach was to be utilized henceforth. Accord General Public Utilities Corporation v. United States, 745 F…

  9. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 2, 1982 · in the opinion

    Baptist v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (1982)

    …examination, and his exclusive reliance on the Selikoff study. The latter study concluded that among 17,800 members of the general public 17.5 cases of death from pancreatic cancer could be expected. Among asbestos workers…

  10. 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…

  11. Court case · Arizona Supreme Court · November 19, 1982 · in the opinion

    Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona (1982)

    …The new statute may cure problems such as the one presented by this case. Under the general provisions, the statute of limitations commences only when the workman knows or should know that "he has sustained a…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · June 1, 1989 · in the opinion

    Carey Canada Inc. v. California Union Ins. Co. (1989)

    …Thus, the meaning of asbestosis was a matter of public record years before defendants' policies were sold. Numerous general circulation newspaper and magazine articles about the various asbestos-related health hazards, including articles in The New…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · April 7, 1981 · in the opinion

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

    …does not apply to cases already filed before the amendment was enacted. Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution states that the "general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, ..." Section 1.58(A)(1…

  14. Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · June 13, 1989 · in the opinion

    Kath v. Burlington Northern R. Co. (1989)

    …rejected this requested interrogatory, Burlington claims reversible error. The general rule is that parties are entitled to have all issues of fact submitted to the jury except those which are waived. Wormsbecker v. Donovan Construction Co…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Oregon · December 23, 1988 · in the opinion

    Schmoll v. ACandS, Inc. (1988)

    …transfer of corporate assets, carefully preserving the appearance of an arms-length transaction between separate corporations. As a general rule, when a corporation purchases all or most of the assets of another corporation, the purchasing corporation…

  16. Court case · Ohio Supreme Court · April 13, 1983 · in the opinion

    O'stricker v. Jim Walter Corp. (1983)

    …An action for bodily injury or injuring personal property shall be brought within two years after the cause thereof arose." In 1980, the General Assembly amended that statute by adding the following proviso, effective June 12…

  17. Court case · Arizona Court of Appeals · December 10, 1987 · in the opinion

    Burns v. Jaquays Min. Corp. (1987)

    …cases. In litigation involving public-entity defendants, we conclude that the use of a fund to administer medical-surveillance payments should be the general rule, in the absence of factors that render it impractical or inappropriate…

  18. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · December 14, 1984 · in the opinion

    United States v. Croft (1984)

    …a former Adjutant General of the National Guard used National Guard aircrafts, fuel, and personnel for "his own convenience rather than that of the National Guard." Id. at 188-89. The general was convicted for knowing…

  19. 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…

  20. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · August 12, 1987 · in the opinion

    Wood v. Harry Harmon Insulation (1987)

    …usual occupations; (4) if the disease is an ordinary disease of life, the incidence of such a disease must be substantially higher in the particular occupation than in the general public. Hamilton v. Stamas Yachts, 496…