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

Search

9 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · April 24, 1997 · in the opinion

    Conway v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 1997)

    …Fed.Cir.1985); In re Upjohn Co. Antibiotic Cleocin Products Liability Litigation, 664 F.2d 114, 118 (6th Cir.1981); General Electric Co. v. Byrne, 611 F.2d 670, 673 (7th Cir.1979). Judge Weiner'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 · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · March 20, 1990 · in the opinion

    Johnson v. Celotex Corp. (1990)

    …that there was exposure, but was compelled to come to that result. Plaintiff worked at the Navy Yard from 1942 to 1945 as an electrician's helper on board ships including the Missouri, the Iowa and…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit · September 26, 1990 · in the opinion

    Hoffman v. Allied Corp. (1990)

    …however, that no asbestos products were used within the ordnance repair shop itself. [\1381] Leo Rapacilo was an electrician who worked in close proximity to asbestos products on the ships in dry dock at the shipyard…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · November 5, 1997 · in the opinion

    Ciletti v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 1997)

    In general, filing a proof of claim would not appear to constitute settlement under § 15-108. The plaintiff's proffer of a release to the defendant has been called "the defining moment of settlement", In re…

  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 · 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…

  8. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · February 4, 1991 · in the opinion

    Koker v. Armstrong Cork, Inc. (1991)

    …344, 348, 693 P.2d 687 (1985): In an ordinary personal injury action, the general rule is that a cause of action "accrues" at the time the act or omission occurs. In certain torts, however, injured…

  9. 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…