7 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · February 8, 2012
Portland General Electric Company v. Ebasco Services, Inc. (2012)
…and vacated the supplemental fee judgment in favor of Portland General Electric. A court lacks jurisdiction to enter a default judgment for more than the amount prayed for in the complaint unless the defaulting party had…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Oregon · February 2, 2018
Coury v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018)
…keeping the case in federal court under the federal officer removal statute for General Electric and CBS. A settlement-related email from a plaintiff's side can be an "other paper" under 28 U.S.C…
-
Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · April 10, 2013
Greer v. Ace Hardware Corporation (2013)
…summary judgment, the plaintiff must produce evidence identifying a specific asbestos-containing product the defendant made or supplied and to which the plaintiff was exposed; general assertions that "some" products contained asbestos, or guesswork, are not…
-
Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · December 29, 2010 · in the opinion
Griffin v. Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust (2010)
…in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—here, plaintiff—and draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 408, 939 P2d 608 (1997). Plaintiff worked as…
-
Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · April 20, 2016 · in the opinion
McKenzie v. AW Chesterson Co. (2016)
…The Washington Supreme Court held that "the general rule" for common-law products liability cases that a product manufacturer has no duty "to warn of the dangers of exposure to asbestos in other manufacturers' products," articulated…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Oregon · August 25, 2015 · in the opinion
Laux v. Akebono Brake Industry Co., Ltd. (2015)
…JCOFS, Inc. was not a voluntary act of Plaintiff, the case was not properly removable. See Self v. General Motors Corp., 588 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 1978) (articulating the "voluntary-involuntary" rule). In response…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Oregon · May 23, 2019 · in the opinion
Levin v. Johnson & Johnson (2019)
…S. Gypsum Co., 285 B.R. 460, 475 (D. Or. 2002). Section 1452(b) has been understood to permit remand based on general fairness and reasonableness considerations. Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124…