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

Search

13 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa · July 16, 1998

    Harder v. ACandS, Inc. (1998)

    The federal district court denied General Electric's motion for summary judgment, holding that Iowa's fifteen-year statute of repose did not bar the Harders' claims against GE over asbestos insulation blankets. Under Iowa Code…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · July 26, 2023

    Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023)

    …shares of fault of those released parties if their fault is proven at trial. The plaintiffs said the releases covered only asbestosis, were too general, and were inadmissible. The court found the releases authenticated and admissible…

  3. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 17, 2010 · in the opinion

    Moore v. Ericsson, Inc. (2010)

    …International and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., DFT, RPM, Bondex International, Fosterwheeler, LLC, Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, General Electric Company, CY Goldberg, Ingersollrand, Georgia Pacific, Melrath Gasket Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance, Owens-Illinois, Inc., Riley Power…

  4. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · July 16, 1991 · in the opinion

    Fibreboard Corp. v. Pool (1991)

    …1969). Quantifying probability, it means a more than fifty percent chance. See Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Underwriters v. Gary Douglas Electric, 48 Ohio App.2d 319, 357 N.E.2d 388, 392 (1974). Dr. J.D. Britton…

  5. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · December 30, 2002

    Hennegan v. Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co. (2002)

    …Garlock 80 percent at fault and the settling employer 20 percent, and awarded $2,500,000 in general damages plus $596,769.62 in special damages. On appeal Garlock argued that the court shifted the burden…

  6. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · March 2, 2012

    John Crane, Inc. v. Hardick (2012)

    …whether under DOHSA, the Jones Act, or general maritime law, and a Navy sailor who contributed to the function of vessels and had a substantial connection to them is a seaman. Arguments not briefed under Rule…

  7. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · December 26, 2001 · in the opinion

    Burns v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (2001)

    … John Crane, Inc.; DAP, Inc.; Fibreboard Corporation; GAF Corporation; General Refractories Company; Harbison-Walker Refractories Company; Harcros Chemicals, Inc., as Successor-in-Interest to Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company; Kaiser Refractories, A Division of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical…

  8. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 30, 2019 · in the opinion

    Lopez v. the Hillshire Brands Company (2019)

    …430, the more general instruction on substantial-factor causation: "A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a…

  9. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · June 27, 1996 · in the opinion

    Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc. (1996)

    …requirements of predominance and superiority. In In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir.) \[Hereinafter GM Trucks\], cert. denied sub nom. General Motors Corp. v…

  10. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · January 17, 2001 · in the opinion

    Crooks v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (2001)

    …principle of stare decisis, the civil law statutes and codes are usually drafted in more general terms than common-law statutes and thus depend more on judges to render them concrete through judicial interpretation. Id. The…

  11. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · November 18, 1994 · in the opinion

    Keystone Steel and Wire Co. v. Costa (1994)

    …689, 485 N.E.2d 500.) In general, a new trial on the question of damages only is appropriately granted where (1) the jury's verdict on the question of liability is amply supported by the…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · November 18, 1994 · in the opinion

    Costa v. Dresser Industries, Inc. (1994)

    …246 N.E.2d 269.) The general rule as to statements made by counsel in opening statement that certain evidence will be introduced is that such statements are not improper if made in good faith and…