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

Search

449 results for “General Electric”, page 17 of 23

  1. Court case · Colorado Supreme Court · February 16, 1993 · in the opinion

    Fibreboard Corp. v. Fenton (1993)

    …their set-off against the total judgment owed by other tortfeasors. Had the General Assembly intended this additional requirement to be met prior to set-off, it simply could have included a provision so requiring in…

  2. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · December 1, 1993 · in the opinion

    In re Joint E. & SO. Dist. Asbestos Lit. (1993)

    …controversy" under Article III. Keene, as the party asserting jurisdiction, bears the burden of showing that the case is properly before the court. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298 U.S. 178, 189…

  3. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · April 27, 1990 · in the opinion

    Jenkins v. Johns-Manville Products (1990)

    …BROCHIN. Lawrence G. Moncher, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent-appellant Commissioner Of Labor, and respondent-cross-appellant in A-5659-86T7 (Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Lawrence G…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · November 12, 1990 · in the opinion

    Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1990)

    …to concurrently produce a single injury, the plaintiff may recover from the defendant for the entire injury. Shipp v. General Motors Corporation, 750 F.2d 418, 425-26 (5th Cir.1985). The plaintiff need only show…

  5. Court case · Kansas Supreme Court · April 10, 1992 · in the opinion

    Harding v. KC Wall Products, Inc. (1992)

    …the time the action was filed applies. It is a well-settled rule of law that "statutes complete in themselves, relating to a specific thing, take precedence over general statutes." Szoboszlay v. Glessner, 233 Kan. 475…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1999 · in the opinion

    Howard v. Owens Corning (1999)

    …emotional distress, intentional tort, conspiracy [\389] and loss of consortium; and sought general, special and punitive damages against no fewer than 215 named defendants and 300 unnamed does. Specifically, the complaint alleged that as a result…

  7. Court case · Iowa Supreme Court · February 17, 1993 · in the opinion

    Beeman v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Fund (1993)

    …convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Iowa Code § 668A.1. Beeman apparently agrees that punitive damages may not be assessed against Keene based on the general knowledge of the asbestos industry. Instead, there must be clear, convincing, and…

  8. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 12, 1999 · in the opinion

    Overly v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. (1999)

    …Mississippi. Their general theory of negligence is that Ingalls knew or should have known about the dangers of asbestos and nevertheless exposed Robert to those dangers without providing any warning or protection. I. Exposure and causation…

  9. Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · June 21, 1995 · in the opinion

    Estate of Strametz v. Spectrum Motor., Inc. (1995)

    …intact. The dissent does not claim that the amendments changed the last injurious exposure rule enunciated in Meyer and Fossum. Instead, it attempts to assess the legislature's general intent. 135 Or.App. at 84. A…

  10. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · May 9, 1991 · in the opinion

    Wehmeier v. Unr Industries, Inc. (1991)

    …OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Solomon stated it was his general impression that the level of asbestos used at UNARCO's Bloomington plant was not safe. Solomon stated he never saw chrysotile asbestos ground…

  11. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · September 8, 1993 · in the opinion

    Keene Corp. v. Rogers (1993)

    …Keene does not dispute that Alabama law should control the case in general but it contends that since the appellees did not prove and the trial court did not judicially notice any Alabama law on this…

  12. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · June 27, 1996 · in the opinion

    Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc. (1996)

    …requirements of predominance and superiority. In In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir.) \[Hereinafter GM Trucks\], cert. denied sub nom. General Motors Corp. v…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 1, 1993 · in the opinion

    Watkins v. Fibreboard Corp. (1993)

    …asbestos was the producing cause. This is a basic issue in this case, articulated to some extent in the trial judge's general instructions, but not clearly articulated by either party, except perhaps by the plaintiffs…

  14. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · January 25, 1991 · in the opinion

    Moran v. G. & WH Corson, Inc. (1991)

    …with Bob Hinks. Q. About that knowledge? A. A general discussion, a light general thing that I had read about in the paper or, you know, not actually getting into detail. Q. You read about what…

  15. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · August 14, 1997 · in the opinion

    Van Winkle v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1997)

    …the general rule is that the trial court has a duty to provide instruction to the jury where it has posed an explicit question or requested clarification on a point of law arising from facts about…

  16. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 27, 1998 · in the opinion

    Petrini v. Mohasco Corp. (1998)

    …70\]. Mohasco asserts New York cases are in accord, citing Grant-Howard Associates v. General Housewares (1984) 63 N.Y.2d 291 \[482 N.Y.S.2d 225, 472 N.E.2d 1\]; Mitchell v. Suburban…

  17. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · December 10, 1992 · in the opinion

    In re Prudential Lines, Inc. (1992)

    …however, that Asbestosis Claimants' position misconstrues the general rules of insurance law and contractual interpretation applicable here. At the most basic level, the P & I policies that PLI purchased were yearly contracts for indemnification for losses…

  18. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · June 30, 1992 · in the opinion

    Feldman v. Owens-Illinois (In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litigation, 1992)

    …statute: "There is no justification for rewarding recalcitrant non-settling defendants by permitting them to apply the General Obligations Law offset in a manner that reduces or even obliterates their own liability in cases where plaintiffs…

  19. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 7, 1992 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong (1992)

    …283 Md. 296, 327, 389 A.2d 887, 905 (1978). Causation is a necessary element of any strict liability action. Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337, 344, 363 A.2d 955, 958 (1976). In…

  20. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida · December 22, 1997 · in the opinion

    Matter of Celotex Corp. (1997)

    …As explained above, the Defendants issued excess comprehensive general liability insurance to the Debtor for policy periods subsequent to 1977 which contained one of two asbestosis exclusions. The introduction of the exclusions into the excess policies…