24 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2
-
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 · Washington Court of Appeals · March 7, 2005 · in the opinion
Brown v. Crown Cork & Seal Company (2005)
…UNIROYAL, INC..; E.J. BARTELLS SETTLEMENT TRUST; CERTAIN-TEED CORPORATION; FLINTKOTE CORPORATION; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; and ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC., Defendants. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., as successor-in-interest to ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC., Respondent. No…
-
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 · Pennsylvania Superior Court · February 11, 2009 · in the opinion
Burger v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2009)
…he performed automotive repairs and, from the early 1950's to the early 1980's, he used brakes from Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Pep Boys, and NAPA stores. Deposition of Jon Burger, dated 3/29/06…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 29, 2007 · in the opinion
Bakkie v. Union Carbide Corporation (2007)
…The court explained that the employer was a "sophisticated organization" and it did not have to be "told that gasoline is volatile and that sparks from an electrical connection or friction can cause ignition." (Ibid.) Subsequently…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · August 5, 2009 · in the opinion
Crowder V AW Chesterton Co. (2009)
…date the party last parted with possession or control of the product" constituted a substantive law (see, Connecticut General Statute §52-577\[a\]). In Blatz v. Westinehouse Electric Corp., 274 A.D.2d 491 (2nd Dept.…
-
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 · 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 · Washington Court of Appeals · February 7, 2005
Clare v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (2005)
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Saberhagen Holdings and General Motors, holding that the estate's claims over Clifford Clare's mesothelioma death were time-barred, and the estate lost. Under Washington's discovery…
-
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 · 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 · New York Supreme Court · June 27, 2005
DeMeyer v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (Matter of Asbestos Litig, 2005)
…York applies the Frye general acceptance standard rather than Daubert; once the challenger makes a prima facie showing that an expert's methodology is not generally accepted, the proponent must prove general acceptance by a fair…
-
Medical study · Medical research · 2004
Environmental and occupational health hazards associated with the presence of asbestos in brake linings and pads (1900 to present): a "state-of-the-art" review
…to 2002 and summarized exposure and health studies of brake mechanics and friction product manufacturing workers. The work was primarily funded by Ford, DaimlerChrysler and General Motors, companies involved in brake-dust litigation. In NIOSH surveys…
-
Medical study · Medical research · 2004
RE: Asbestos in brakes: exposure and risk of disease
…cannot be defended. The letter discloses that the author has served as an expert witness in friction brake litigation, with the author's employer receiving funding for this work from Ford, General Motors and Daimler Chrysler.
-
Medical study · Medical research · 2006
Re: Evaluation of the size and type of free particulates collected from unused asbestos-containing brake components as related to potential for respirability
…raise concerns about historical exposures of automotive mechanics. The authors disclosed that their research was primarily funded by Ford, DaimlerChrysler and General Motors, and that some of them had been expert witnesses in brake-repair litigation.
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · March 20, 2006
Moore v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006)
…a worksite, but a jury may not be left to speculate. A general expert opinion that parts from companies "like" the defendant likely contained asbestos, with no specific link to the defendant's products, does not…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 28, 2003 · in the opinion
Ferris v. Gatke Corporation (2003)
…our opinion concluded, that "the peculiar facts presented by exposure to asbestos fiber from brake pads" made general order 21 "inapplicable to the facts of the claim stated by plaintiffs." Plaintiffs, Wheeler went on to point…
-
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 · California Court of Appeal · July 9, 2009 · in the opinion
Ransford v. Griffin Wheel Company, Inc. (2009)
…law damage suits by former railroad workers against a locomotive manufacturer for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos in the manufacturer's products. (Scheiding v. General Motors Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 471, 474…