20 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · March 6, 1981 · in the opinion
Locke v. Johns-Manville (1981)
…the defendants in the November 1978 order appealed from. The record shows that since approximately 1948 plaintiff had been employed as an industrial electrician by various contractors at sites in Virginia, New York and North Carolina…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · March 30, 1983 · in the opinion
Austin v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (1983)
…appears that the tests are the same, since, in general "\[o\]nce admiralty jurisdiction is established, then all of the substantive rules and precepts peculiar to the law of the sea become applicable." Brance v. Shumann…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 5, 1984 · in the opinion
Weinberg v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984)
…Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." 28 U.S.C…
-
Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · October 25, 1983 · in the opinion
Froud v. Celotex Corp. (1983)
…2d 199, 214-15, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 1595-96 (Black, J., dissenting); General Dynamics Corp., Electric Boat Division, v. Benefits Review Board (2d Cir.1977), 565 F.2d 208, 212; Williams v. Ray (1978), 146…
-
Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · April 19, 1982 · in the opinion
Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1982)
…Rather, defendants state, the cost "will be borne by the public at large and reflected in a general, across the board increase in premiums to compensate for unanticipated risks." There is some truth in this assertion…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 30, 2004
Gilbert v. Monsey Products Co. (2004)
…exposure was regular and frequent enough to cause the injury was a question for the jury. The court vacated the judgments and remanded. One judge concurred in the result, finding Eckenrod's general principles still applicable.
-
Court case · Minnesota Supreme Court · May 14, 1982 · in the opinion
DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (1982)
…the court concluded that because the tolling provisions of the general limitations statute were in existence prior to the enactment of the wrongful death statute the legislature "could not possibly have had in mind that the…
-
Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · February 6, 1986 · in the opinion
Costello v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (1986)
…242.) Applying a rule of reasonableness it was concluded that the intent of the General Assembly was that the time within which the cause of action may be discovered cannot remain open-ended and that it…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · January 14, 1980 · in the opinion
Mooney v. Fibreboard Corp. (1980)
…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…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · May 9, 1991 · in the opinion
Wehmeier v. Unr Industries, Inc. (1991)
…OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Solomon stated it was his general impression that the level of asbestos used at UNARCO's Bloomington plant was not safe. Solomon stated he never saw chrysotile asbestos ground…
-
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…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · July 30, 1993 · in the opinion
Adcock v. Brakegate, Ltd. (1993)
…under Illinois common law. However, Fahner does not represent that conclusion because it involved a statutory enforcement action brought by the Illinois Attorney General pursuant to the Illinois Antitrust Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38…
-
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 …
-
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…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 30, 2004 · in the opinion
Gilbert v. Monsey Products Company (2004)
…1988). In this case, I find the general principles of Eckenrod applicable. Where appellant himself testified about his exposure to the appellees' products and provided sufficient evidence of product identification, the trial court's grant of…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · September 11, 1986 · in the opinion
Vigiolto v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)
…Applicable Law. We begin with the proposition that in a tort action, as a general rule, proof that a [\1457] specific defendant caused the plaintiff's harm is a prerequisite to that defendant's liability to…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · October 5, 1981 · in the opinion
White v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1981)
…admiralty jurisdiction and rejected claims under the Extension of Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 740, or the general maritime law, 28 U.S.C. § 1333, because the alleged injuries bore no reasonable relationship to traditional…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 3, 1982 · in the opinion
Staiano v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1982)
…Pa.R.App.P. 301(a). Appellants acknowledge the general rule that an issue not argued below may not be argued on appeal, but nevertheless assert that their argument is not waived. They say: [\293] The…