8 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · June 6, 1995 · in the opinion
Harris v. AC & S, Inc. (1995)
…822 (1971); Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941); Clarin Corp. v. Massachusetts General Life Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 471, 474 (7th…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · December 11, 1990 · in the opinion
Knox v. AC & S, Inc. (1990)
…Code sections 22-3-7-2 through XX-X-X-XX as the IWODA despite the fact that the Indiana General Assembly repealed the Act's short title in 1988. \[5\] The employer's exemption from…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · March 17, 1999
Novicki v. Rapid-American Corp. (1999)
…and Rapid-American conceded it did not. The case therefore fell under section 5, the general product liability limitation and repose provision. Because the parties had not briefed section 5, the court remanded for further argument…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · June 23, 1999 · in the opinion
Lambert v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1999)
…we must address two issues. First, we must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether the incident had "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce." Id. (quoting Sisson v. Ruby…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · March 10, 1999 · in the opinion
Sorenson v. Allied Products Corp. (1999)
…the purchase of White Farm's assets. 3) There has been no sufficient exception shown to overcome the general rule that a purchaser of assets is not liable for prior actions of a selling corporation. 4)…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · February 17, 1999 · in the opinion
Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Noppert (1999)
…to harmonize the provisions of a statute and give effect to all of its provisions, or save it from unconstitutionality or, in general, to effect the obvious intention of the legislature." (emphasis in original)); Dague v…