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

Search

655 results for “General Electric”, page 28 of 33

  1. Court case · Wisconsin Court of Appeals · September 25, 2001 · in the opinion

    International Paper Co. v. Labour & Indus. Rev. Com'n (2001)

    …9. In this case, neither party specifically addresses whether and to what extent these four factors have been established. Our general review of the case suggests that factors one, three and four are satisfied. Furthermore, it…

  2. 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? . …

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Montana · November 29, 2005 · in the opinion

    US v. Grace (2005)

    …to an EPA CERCLA 104(e) Request for Information, to wit: that W.R. GRACE did not provide vermiculite to the general public; that W.R. GRACE employees did not regularly leave the mine with tremolite…

  4. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 13, 2009 · in the opinion

    Silvestro v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2009)

    …to chrysotile." \[3\] Although Silvestro again worked in construction after his career as boiler repairman, the evidence showed that use of asbestos in construction materials (and in general) was being curtailed by the 1970's, and…

  5. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · July 29, 2008 · in the opinion

    Clayton v. American Biltrate (2008)

    …1263 (D.R.I. 1993). As a general note, to the extent Defendants in asbestos litigation choose to file motions for summary judgment before they have responded to plaintiffs' reasonable discovery requests—including, but not limited…

  6. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · May 5, 2005 · in the opinion

    Olivo v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (2005)

    …In New Jersey, however, the common law of premises liability "has undergone transition toward \a broadening application of a general tort obligation to exercise reasonable care against foreseeable harm to others.'" Sussman, supra, 373 N.J…

  7. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · August 31, 2007 · in the opinion

    TH Agriculture and Nutrition, LLC. v. Akaiwa (2007)

    …Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution. Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution provides that "\[t\]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which…

  8. Court case · West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals · December 4, 2003 · in the opinion

    Adams v. Consolidated Rail Corp. (2003)

    …clear that the trial court has acted under some misapprehension of the law or the evidence. Syl. pt. 1, Matheny v. Fairmont General Hospital, 212 W.Va. 740, 575 S.E.2d 350 (2002); Lamphere v…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · July 7, 2004 · in the opinion

    Hernandez v. Todd Shipyards Corporation (2004)

    …77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983), will not provide a basis for removal. As a general rule, absent diversity jurisdiction, a case will not be removable if the complaint does not affirmatively allege a federal claim…

  10. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 21, 2001 · in the opinion

    Ehret v. Congoleum Corp. (2001)

    …installment on [\373] the date the installment becomes due." The Commission's comment to subdivision (a) provided: "Subdivision (a) of Section 685.020 continues the general rule as to the time postjudgment interest commences to run…

  11. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · January 10, 2002 · in the opinion

    Harris v. AC & S., Inc. (2002)

    …1995), trans. denied. In general, product liability actions must be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues or within ten years after the delivery of the product to the initial user or consumer…

  12. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · June 4, 2009 · in the opinion

    Werts v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2009)

    …tested, (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review, (3) whether there is a known or potential rate of error, and (4) whether the methodology has gained general acceptance." Daubert at syllabus; see, also, Miller…

  13. Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · September 1, 2009 · in the opinion

    Rock v. Bucyrus Int'l (In re Minnesota Asbestos Litigation, 2009)

    …the district court issued a case-management order, setting forth general discovery provisions for "all presently pending and future Minnesota Personal Injury Asbestos cases." In January 1999, the district court amended the 1994 case-management order…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · August 5, 2009 · in the opinion

    Anderson v. Bondex Int'l (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2009)

    …address the standards pertaining to relation back, and then proceed to apply those standards to the case before us. Relation Back in General Relation back is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) which provides…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · April 7, 2008 · in the opinion

    O'connell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (2008)

    …information. The Navy specifications for these manuals contained detailed direction as to the kinds of information to be included.... The Navy relied on its training and procedures regarding general shipboard safety hazards, such as asbestos. The…

  16. Court case · North Carolina Court of Appeals · August 16, 2005 · in the opinion

    Payne v. Charlotte Heating & Air Cond. (2005)

    …silicosis and other latent occupational diseases and we can conceive of none. As [\363] was true in Walters, the general goals articulated by defendants for the statute are legitimate state interests, but N.C. Gen.Stat…

  17. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · December 21, 2006 · in the opinion

    Gilcrease v. Garlock, Inc. (2006)

    …We do not address whether reversible error occurred from an improper final argument. Citing the general rule that recovery of actual damages are a prerequisite to the receipt of exemplary damages,\[8\] Garlock next maintains that…

  18. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · July 3, 2006 · in the opinion

    Netversant Wireless Systems v. Dept. OF Labor & Industries (2006)

    …and RCW 49.26 must provide the following: (1) Communication of hazards to employees. General industry requirements. .... (c) Duties of employers and building and facility owners. (i) Building and facility owners must determine the presence, location…

  19. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · February 11, 2009 · in the opinion

    Vanaman v. Dap, Inc. (2009)

    …limits the asbestos-related liability of Pennsylvania corporations when that liability arises from a merger or consolidation. In general, the Statute caps the successor corporation's asbestos-related liability at the fair market value of the…

  20. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · November 25, 2002 · in the opinion

    Campbell v. Lockheed Shipbuilding Corp. (2002)

    …Under section 905(a), a general contractor such as Lockheed will be "deemed" the employer of a subcontractor's employee for the sake of a compensation claim, but "only if the subcontractor fails to secure the…