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

Search

17 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · April 30, 1986 · in the opinion

    Brown v. Saif (1986)

    …his claim for medical services. We affirm. During January, 1983, claimant worked at a demolition project in downtown Portland as an electrician. Over the course of two weeks, he was exposed to asbestos dust. Shortly thereafter…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · North Carolina Supreme Court · November 5, 1985 · in the opinion

    Wilder v. Amatex Corp. (1985)

    …E.2d 281 (1972); Galligan v. Chapel Hill, 276 N.C. 172, 171 S.E.2d 427 (1970); Domestic Electric Service Co., Inc. v. Rocky Mount, 20 N.C.App. 347, 201 S.E.2d 508…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · December 23, 1981 · in the opinion

    Petes v. Hayes (1981)

    …was phrased "Does plaintiff, Alton Petes, suffer from disability or disease which specifically results from the inhalation of asbestos particles ..." (Emphasis added.) "Specifically" was not defined in the general charge. In its everyday usage, "specifically" is…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. Court case · Nebraska Supreme Court · June 26, 1981 · in the opinion

    Osteen v. AC & S., Inc. (1981)

    …which we are now accepting as the law of this State, be deemed unjust, the remedy lies with the General Assembly." Id. at 487. A reminder of the root purpose of workmen's compensation legislation appears…

  9. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · September 22, 1989 · in the opinion

    Roller v. Basic Const. Co. (1989)

    …the time of occurrence of an "injury by accident" is ordinarily obvious. But the General Assembly, realizing that ascertainment of this critical point in time would present great difficulty in the case of the insidious onset…

  10. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · June 1, 1988 · in the opinion

    H & H Plumbing Co. v. Indus. Comm'n (1988)

    …on claimant's testimony regarding his work on the boilers and the appearance of the gaskets. The Commission also relied on the testimony of Norris, H & H's general foreman, that the gaskets contained asbestos. Moreover…

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · October 28, 1981 · in the opinion

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

    …The defendants' first argument is that plaintiff's "survival" claim is time-barred under the law of the District of Columbia, which provides that the general period of limitations is three years. See D.C.Code …

  14. 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…

  15. 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…

  16. 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…

  17. Court case · Utah Supreme Court · September 29, 1987 · in the opinion

    Tisco Intermountain v. Industrial Com'n of Utah (1987)

    …to asbestos products from 1971 until his death. Rather, they spoke only in very general terms. When asked if she had any knowledge of the insulation products used by Tisco, Mrs. Werner responded: "Not an awfully…