20 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · Kentucky Court of Appeals · February 25, 2005
Rehm v. Navistar International (2005)
James Rehm, a millwright employed by Rapid Installation from about 1975 to 1982, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2001 and died in 2002. He, and later his wife as executrix and his children, sued sixteen companies that owned the facilities where…
-
Court case · Michigan Court of Appeals · January 11, 2007 · in the opinion
Chapin v. A & L Parts, Inc. (2007)
…125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993),\[2\] and its progeny, Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 470 Mich. 749, 685 N.W.2d 391 (2004), General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · October 31, 2008
Kummer v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2008)
…remained on causation, and granted Ford's and GM's unopposed motions, so Mrs. Kummer's claims against Viacom go forward. Under general maritime law, using the Pennsylvania-based "regularity, frequency and proximity" test, direct evidence…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · August 24, 2009 · in the opinion
General Motors Corporation v. Grenier (2009)
…deprived the trial judge of the opportunity to deal with the problem when it arose. Such inaction is deemed a waiver of any resulting error for appellate purposes. (Emphasis added.); Delaware Electric Coop., Inc. v. Duphily…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · February 4, 2009
General Motors Corporation v. Grenier (2009)
The Delaware Supreme Court remanded to the motion judge to reconsider the admissibility of the plaintiffs' general causation experts (Drs. Dodson and Lemen) because his factual findings misstated the record, leaving GM and Ford's challenge…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · April 8, 2009
Grenier v. General Motors Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2009)
…despite factual errors in its earlier opinion, it properly denied General Motors' and Ford's motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation expert testimony, so Grenier's experts remained admissible. A plaintiff's expert need not disprove…
-
Court case · Arkansas Supreme Court · July 5, 2002
Chavers v. General Motors Corp. (2002)
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for General Motors, AlliedSignal and Ford, rejecting the claims of Deidra Chavers over her husband's mesothelioma death. Arkansas adopts the 'frequency, regularity, and proximity…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · March 5, 2007
Cepeda v. AC&S, Inc. (2007)
The trial court denied Ford's and General Motors' motion to exclude the CCAR S/P2 training materials, granted their motion to exclude other CCAR web site material and the videotape, and granted plaintiff Cepeda's…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 10, 2006
Berger v. Amchem Prods. (2006)
The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motions (joined by Ford and General Motors) to preclude evidence that brake and clutch dust causes asbestos disease, to dismiss the complaints, and for a Frye hearing, so the plaintiffs (Berger…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · October 24, 2002
Vaughn v. Ford Motor Co. (2002)
The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing judgment for Ford, General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, Allied Signal, Borg-Warner and Uniroyal, holding the exclusion of plaintiff's experts was an abuse of discretion but harmless because…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · July 31, 2002
In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (2002)
Tens of thousands of people sued in state courts across the country, claiming that asbestos in friction products such as brake pads gave them or their relatives mesothelioma, lung, laryngeal or esophageal cancer, or asbestosis. They sued makers and…
-
Court case · South Carolina Supreme Court · April 30, 2007
Henderson v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2007)
James Henderson, a North Carolina resident, and his wife sued several manufacturers in South Carolina. They claimed he developed mesothelioma from asbestos-containing products he encountered working for many years as a boilermaker, pipefitter and…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 13, 2003
Polito v. Burns Int'l Services Corp. (Matter of Asbestos Litig., 2003)
…repaired over a number of years. The remaining defendants were Burns International (formerly Borg-Warner), DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors, all involved in making or distributing brake products. Before trial, they moved to exclude certain evidence…
-
Court case · Michigan Supreme Court · July 25, 2007 · in the opinion
In re Certified Question From the Fourteenth District Court OF Appeals OF Texas (2007)
of a general duty to exercise reasonable care in preventing foreseeable harm ... is fair and just." \[Olivo, supra at 402, quoting Hopkins v Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 NJ 426, 438; 625 A2d 1110 (1993) (emphasis added…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 15, 2007 · in the opinion
Honer v. Ford Motor Company (2007)
…fibers. Honer then breathed these asbestos fibers because of her direct and indirect contact with her father and brother themselves as well as their clothes, vehicles, tools and general surroundings. In July 2004, Honer alleged, she…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · November 6, 2001 · in the opinion
Allied Signal, Inc. v. Herring (2001)
…[\1036] Moreover, section 2 was enacted to extend the general limitations period in express recognition of the long latency period associated with asbestos-related diseases and illnesses. Extending the limitations period only for the very few…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · September 23, 2004 · in the opinion
In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. (2004)
…they are entitled to discovery of all of Sears' asbestos-related products because the issue is Sears' knowledge of the danger of asbestos in general to show "what Sears knew and when it knew it." However…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 31, 2007 · in the opinion
Varner v. Ford Motor Co. (2007)
…P.O. Box 9900, Brookpark, Ohio 44142, Attorneys for appellees for ford Motor Company. Marc Dann, Ohio Attorney General, Dawn M. Tarka, Assistant Attorney General, 615 West Superior Avenue, 11th Floor, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, for Bureau…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · October 16, 2006 · in the opinion
McPhee v. Ford Motor Company (2006)
…s mesothelioma: \[Ms. Leeper\]: Will you be offering any specific opinions at trial regarding the causal relationship between Ms. McPhee's alleged indirect exposure to General Motors or Ford asbestos-containing products and her alleged mesothelioma? . …
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 14, 2003 · in the opinion
Cossman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2003)
…28, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 518.) Section 361 Requires Application of Indiana Law In general, whether a claim is barred by a statute of limitations "is a procedural matter governed by the law of the forum…