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

Search

13 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · June 14, 1990

    Fagiola v. National Gypsum Co. AC & S., Inc. (1990)

    …not warrant reversal. Product Identification; Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: Electric Boat shipyard (General Dynamics); General Dynamics Electric Boat Shipyard, Groton quality assurance engineer General Dynamics Electric Boat Shipyard Groton late 1950's and 1960's

  2. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit · January 31, 1990

    Kraciun v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1990)

    …Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1953 onward (except Navy 1954-1958); service crew, general maintenance worker and electrical maintenance worker E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1948-1985; maintenance person…

  3. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 10, 1992 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1992)

    Castleman also testified that some general-knowledge encyclopedias included notes on asbestosis as early as 1939 or 1940. The Court of Special Appeals reviewed this evidence and held that "\[a\] jury ... could reasonably infer that Porter…

  4. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Ohio · December 4, 1995 · in the opinion

    In re Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. (1995)

    …in terms of [\690] priority within the company's capital structure, recognizing it is a general unsecured claim of the company's, and we looked at what would be an appropriate discount rate for any claim…

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · February 20, 1990 · in the opinion

    Grispo v. Eagle-Picher Indus. (In re Joint E. & S. Dist. New York Asbestos Lit., 1990)

    682, § 4, which was enacted after Casabianca and which extended the limitations period for persons injured by asbestos, and found a general legislative disposition favoring compensation of victims of asbestos exposure. This aim, the court reasoned…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · April 14, 1995 · in the opinion

    Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1995)

    …the petit jury venire. The Supreme Court announced a general rule that "\[t\]he denial or impairment of the right \[to exercise peremptory challenges\] is reversible error without a showing of prejudice." Swain, 380 U.S…

  7. Court case · Colorado Supreme Court · September 16, 1991 · in the opinion

    Miller v. Armstrong World Industries (1991)

    …each possible disease related to asbestos exposure has a separate limitations period. "If this is an unfair result, the remedy for its correction lies with the General Assembly" and not with this court. Crownover v. Gleichman…

  8. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 20, 1992 · in the opinion

    Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1992)

    …TAMILIA, KELLY and JOHNSON, JJ. [\442] WIEAND, Judge: The general issue in this asbestos exposure action is whether Pennsylvania, in the context of asbestos actions, shall be a one-disease or two-disease state. More specifically…

  9. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · August 12, 1996 · in the opinion

    Nelson v. Keene Corp. (1996)

    …pleadings shall be according to the rules." 735 ILCS 5/2-201(a) (West 1994). General jurisdiction is invoked in the trial court when an action is filed and a summons is issued and served upon…

  10. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · August 29, 1990 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1990)

    … 388 (1965), observing that the section had previously been adopted as a general principle in the duty to warn area by previous Maryland cases. Section 388 states as follows: Chattel Known to Be Dangerous for Intended…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 14, 1994 · in the opinion

    Coates v. AC and S, Inc. (1994)

    …599 So.2d at 1062 n. 13. \[10\] Johnstone was a case under the general maritime law which adopted Louisiana law as the law of the adjacent state. \[11\] Defendants contend that the use of OSHA…

  12. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · August 8, 1991 · in the opinion

    Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (1991)

    …On appeal from the judgment subsequently entered, OCF offers four general challenges: (1) the district court erred in denying its initial motion for a directed verdict and later motion to dismiss the complaint; (2) the district…

  13. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · September 21, 1995 · in the opinion

    Baumgart v. Keene Bldg. Products Corp. (1995)

    …835 (1967). However, we have long recognized an exception to this general rule which acts to toll the running of the limitations period. The discovery rule "provides that where the existence of the injury is not…