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

Search

22 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2

  1. Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · October 25, 1989 · in the opinion

    Board of Education v. A, C & S, Inc. (1989)

    …the defendant (Sawyer, 89 Ill.2d at 384 (real estate brokers must follow the regulations created by the Department of Registration and Education); Heimgaertner v. Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Co. (1955), 6 Ill.2d 152, 153-54 …

  2. Court case · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · August 24, 1989 · in the opinion

    District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation (1989)

    …hospitals, and government offices, are for the general use of the public, and hundreds or even thousands of people pass through each of them every day. Any child who grows up in the District and attends…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · January 30, 1986 · in the opinion

    Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (1986)

    …a given industry. They are often set forth in some type of code, such as a building code or electrical code, or they may be adopted by the trade organization of a given industry. State of…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit · September 26, 1990 · in the opinion

    Hoffman v. Allied Corp. (1990)

    …however, that no asbestos products were used within the ordnance repair shop itself. [\1381] Leo Rapacilo was an electrician who worked in close proximity to asbestos products on the ships in dry dock at the shipyard…

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · February 28, 1986 · in the opinion

    Joyce v. AC and S., Inc. (1986)

    No ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed outside of the employment shall be compensable, except: (1) When it follows as an incident of occupational disease as defined in this title; or…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota · January 11, 1982 · in the opinion

    Bertrand v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …discretion to determine when it should be applied. The general rule should be that in cases where a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action or where, either for the reasons discussed above or…

  7. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · January 23, 2002 · in the opinion

    Hoerner v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2002)

    …indicates that Employers Commercial Union Insurance Co. issued a primary commercial general liability policy to Eagle during each of the one-year periods when Home Insurance issued the excess policy. The personal injury limit for the…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · May 24, 1983 · in the opinion

    Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard Corp. (1983)

    …forum. Defendants have not shown that any hardship complained of is the result of proceeding to trial now. Nor is there a showing that the difficulties inherent in the general situation, including potential judicial inefficiency, constitute…

  9. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 26, 1982 · in the opinion

    Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …Borel, we conclude that Borel, while conclusive as to the general matter of a duty to warn on the part of manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation products, is ultimately ambiguous as to certain key issues. As…

  10. Court case · Delaware Superior Court · August 23, 1983 · in the opinion

    Nutt v. AC & S., Inc. (1983)

    …claims of mental anguish asserted by the plaintiff-wives are alleged in the amended complaints in broad and general language but are actually of two distinct types: mental anguish resulting from the witnessing of the physical…

  11. Court case · Ohio Supreme Court · October 14, 1987 · in the opinion

    Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1987)

    …it is important to understand that both alternative liability and market-share liability are exceptions to the general rule that a plaintiff has to prove an injury was caused by the negligence of a particular defendant…

  12. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 23, 1984 · in the opinion

    Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984)

    …a "less desirable longshoreman" in the future. Id. at 668. Bonura is inapposite to the case at bar. Bonura was decided under general maritime law, not Louisiana law. Furthermore, the instant record does not support an…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · June 3, 1985 · in the opinion

    Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)

    …Court has expressly held, in Turner v. General Motors Corporation,\[36\] that, although evidence of the expectations of the ordinary consumer and the care of a prudent manufacturer may be introduced at trial, "henceforth in the…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii · December 9, 1986 · in the opinion

    In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases (1986)

    …Moreover the Hawaii Court of Appeals has held that the introduction of concepts of "unreasonableness" and "foreseeability" into products liability confuses the jury and equates strict liability with negligence. Boudreau v. General Elec. Co., 2 Haw…

  15. 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…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · October 28, 1981 · in the opinion

    Fearson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)

    …The defendants' first argument is that plaintiff's "survival" claim is time-barred under the law of the District of Columbia, which provides that the general period of limitations is three years. See D.C.Code …

  17. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit · July 30, 1982 · in the opinion

    Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …first action may expressly reserve plaintiff's right to maintain second action). \[35\] Johns-Manville has catalogued an impressive array of court decisions exemplifying the general res judicata rule against splitting an indivisible cause of action…

  18. Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · March 25, 2003 · in the opinion

    Harris v. AC & S., Inc. (2003)

    …was proximately caused by his exposure to asbestos-containing products provided by the Defendants. The Indiana General Assembly has enacted two statutes that limit the period of time within which individuals can file product liability claims…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · September 21, 1994 · in the opinion

    Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc. (1994)

    …I. Bressman, Budd, Larner, Gross, Rosenbaum, Greenberg and Sade, P.C., Cherry Hill, NJ, for General Reinsurance Corp., etal., third-party defendants. Michael J. Geraghty, Sean R. Kelly, David D'Aloia, Saiber, Schlesinger, Satz & Goldstein, Newark…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 14, 1994 · in the opinion

    Coates v. AC and S, Inc. (1994)

    …599 So.2d at 1062 n. 13. \[10\] Johnstone was a case under the general maritime law which adopted Louisiana law as the law of the adjacent state. \[11\] Defendants contend that the use of OSHA…