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 18 of 23

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1998 · in the opinion

    Gutierrez v. Cassiar Mining Corp. (1998)

    …fault, warnings Cassiar placed on its product, general knowledge by asbestos workers (by the early 1970's) of asbestos exposure risks, and preexisting lung conditions caused by Gutierrez having smoked and had exposure to tuberculosis (TB)…

  2. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · October 1, 1996 · in the opinion

    In re Waterman SS Corp. (1996)

    …on MALC. An even more persuasive basis for placing the burden of proof on MALC is the general rule that when the true facts relating to a dispute are particularly within the knowledge of one party…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · November 6, 1992 · in the opinion

    Tragarz v. Keene Corp. (1992)

    …was diagnosed as suffering from malignant pleural mesothelioma, a cancer that is extremely rare among the general population but not as rare among those occupationally exposed to asbestos fibers. Expert testimony in this case indicated that…

  4. Court case · Wisconsin Supreme Court · October 27, 1999 · in the opinion

    Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999)

    …Wisconsin would not turn a deaf ear to argument that in a particular sort of case the policy reasons [\236] for allowing an exception override the policy reasons for applying the general rule. 236 Patzer v…

  5. Court case · Iowa Supreme Court · January 19, 1994 · in the opinion

    Spaur v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1994)

    …neither prosecuted the action against OCF nor has attempted to extract a large penalty for the purpose of raising revenue. We find a clear distinction between the Fund and the general state treasury. See Burke v…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina · August 3, 1992 · in the opinion

    Metal Trades, Inc. v. US (1992)

    …or incapacitating reversible, illness and is thus within the statutory definition of hazardous waste as provided by RCRA.\[9\] "As a general rule, statutory definitions declaring what a term \means' exclude any other meaning." Colautti v…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · July 30, 1999 · in the opinion

    Blanding v. Director, Owcp (1999)

    …was timely filed" based on § 930(f) tolling provision). Respondents cite a single Board ruling to the contrary. See Speedy v. General Dynamics Corp., 15 BRBS 352, 355 (1983). However, we owe no deference to decisions…

  8. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · June 5, 1995 · in the opinion

    Ripa v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1995)

    …insufficient showing of notice of the many Saranac documents which the jury was led to believe were known to Owens-Corning which still marketed Kaylo with no warnings to the end users. As a general rule…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois · October 26, 1993 · in the opinion

    State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. WR Grace & Co. (1993)

    …the design and construction of improvements to real property ... so that they and their [\1059] families are not liable all their lives and beyond lives and into the graves. Eighty-First Illinois General Assembly, House Proceedings…

  10. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · April 26, 1999 · in the opinion

    Holmes v. ACandS, Inc. (1999)

    …year discovery based statute of limitations applicable to product liability claims. The comprehensiveness of the medical malpractice act is evidence of the legislature's intent that it should prevail over the more general wrongful death statute…

  11. Court case · West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals · November 15, 1996 · in the opinion

    Marlin v. Bill Rich Const., Inc. (1996)

    …Va.Code § 29-12A-5(a)(5) stated the common-law rule that a cause of action is not recognized for the breach of a general duty owed the public as a whole. Randall then recognized…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · February 7, 1995 · in the opinion

    Castor v. US (1995)

    …This fact, which is consistent with what the United States claims (at least in a general sense), shows that the BOP is exercising its discretion in handling ACM at the USP-Terre Haute. It is undisputed…

  13. 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…

  14. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · February 20, 1998 · in the opinion

    Ruckstuhl v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1998)

    …The "minimum contacts" prong of the test can be broken down into two types of personal jurisdiction, specific and general. A state exercises "specific jurisdiction" over a non-resident defendant when the lawsuit arises from or…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1996 · in the opinion

    Jenkins v. T & N Plc (1996)

    …defendants, including T&N. The complaint contained causes of action for strict liability and loss of consortium. In addition to general and special damages, the Jenkinses sought damages for loss of earnings, income and earning capacity. ...…

  16. Court case · Minnesota Supreme Court · June 26, 1992 · in the opinion

    80 S. 8th St. Ltd. Ptsp. v. Carey-Canada (1992)

    …tenants who lease space in the building, by maintenance and administrative staff, and by the general public. [\395] The original owners of the IDS Center sold the property to Oxford Development Minnesota, Inc. ("Oxford") in 1981…

  17. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · February 6, 1992 · in the opinion

    Ocasek v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Comp. Fund (1992)

    …both Illinois and federal statutes. Neither, however, is controlling here. Although, as a general matter, the Illinois Code provides that "\[e\]very judgment shall bear interest thereon ...," Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. [\154] 110, para. 12-109…

  18. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · November 29, 1995 · in the opinion

    United Nat. Ins. v. France Refractories (1995)

    …466 A.2d 103, 105 (1983). We have observed that, "\[i\]n the absence of fraud or concealment, it is a general rule that laches follows the statute of limitations." Silver v. Korr, 392 Pa. 26…

  19. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · August 5, 1999 · in the opinion

    Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Walters (1999)

    …be raised at any point in the proceeding. A preliminary motion is, therefore, necessary to assure the application of the laws of another jurisdiction. General Chem. Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916…

  20. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · October 18, 1995 · in the opinion

    ACandS, Inc. v. Godwin (1995)

    …we have now evidence of the consequences of exposure, but we do not have, in general, accurate measures of the levels of exposure occurring 20 or 30 years ago, which have given rise to these consequences…