7 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · Minnesota Supreme Court · October 4, 2001 · in the opinion
Conwed v. Union Carbide Chem. and Plastics (2001)
…thereby giving Conwed the present right to bring a subrogation suit against Union Carbide. We disagree. As a general rule, an employee's cause of action for workers' compensation benefits stemming from an occupational disease does…
-
Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · August 21, 2007
Strand v. Allied Insulation Supply Co. (2007)
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of General Pipe Covering's third-party contribution claims against Quality Insulation and Econ Insulation, so Quality and Econ won and General Pipe lost. When settling parties invoke Pierringer…
-
Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · June 23, 2009 · in the opinion
Newinski v. John Crane, Inc. (2009)
…1981) (citations omitted). An exception to the general rule of joint and several liability applies when there are "independent consecutive acts of negligence and it is reasonably possible to determine which injuries were caused by which…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Minnesota · October 15, 2005 · in the opinion
In re Api, Inc. (2005)
…without the insurer's consent to the terms of settlement. Such terms again are a justifiable incident of the insurers' general right to manage the processing of claims; they reflect insurers' understandable interest in containing their…
-
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…
-
Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · August 8, 2006 · in the opinion
Duffy v. American Standard, Inc. (2006)
…who is now deceased, made several general statements indicating that Hormel and Scheid employees "worked together," no testimony was elicited to indicate any specific tasks that the two sets of employees performed together. Duffy testified that…
-
Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · July 29, 2008 · in the opinion
James v. 3M Corporation (2008)
…play and substantial justice." Juelich, 682 N.W.2d at 570. The degree of the defendant's contacts with the forum state determines whether the defendant may be subject to general or specific personal jurisdiction. Marshall…