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

Search

16 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · May 18, 2016

    Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016)

    …and granted summary judgment to General Electric on all of the Arbogasts' claims against it. A plaintiff must offer evidence from which a jury can reasonably infer that a defendant's product actually contained asbestos before…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · May 2, 2003

    Lindstrom v. AC Products Liability Trust (2003)

    …Wheeler, Aurora Pump, Gulf Engineering, Ingersoll Rand, Walworth, Crosby Valve, General Electric, Warren Pumps, Crane, A.W. Chesterton and Coffin Turbo Pump, and dismissed Lindstrom's claims against them with prejudice. Under maritime product liability law…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · March 17, 2011 · in the opinion

    Kiser v. AW Chesterton Co. (2011)

    …Plaintiff argues that either Virginia's General Assembly was aware of what Plaintiff sees as a national trend in favor of adoption of the separate disease rule and embodied this trend when it amended Virginia's…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · September 16, 2016

    George v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016)

    …County state court. Even assuming consent-by-registration survives Daimler, Pennsylvania's registration statute limits general jurisdiction to acts occurring during the period of registration, so a registration that began after the alleged injury does not…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · April 12, 2019 · in the opinion

    Barrett v. AW Chesterton Co. (2019)

    …Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Individually and as Successor in Interest to Electric Controller and Manufacturing Co., Defendants, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC & Rachelle A. Schofield, MacDonald Law Group, LLC. General Electric Company…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2024 · in the opinion

    Williams v. JM Manufacturing Company, Inc. (2024)

    …conclusion about the scope of this duty and explicitly disapproved Campbell. (Kesner, at p. 1156.) "The \general rule' of duty in California is established by statute." (Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 993…

  7. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · January 10, 2013

    Kiser v. AW Chesterton Co. (2013)

    …accrued at the first diagnosis, asbestosis, not the later mesothelioma diagnosis. The court said any change must come from the General Assembly. Two justices dissented. They would have treated mesothelioma as a separate cause of action.

  8. Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · June 23, 2009 · in the opinion

    Newinski v. John Crane, Inc. (2009)

    …1981) (citations omitted). An exception to the general rule of joint and several liability applies when there are "independent consecutive acts of negligence and it is reasonably possible to determine which injuries were caused by which…

  9. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · April 26, 1999 · in the opinion

    Holmes v. ACandS, Inc. (1999)

    …year discovery based statute of limitations applicable to product liability claims. The comprehensiveness of the medical malpractice act is evidence of the legislature's intent that it should prevail over the more general wrongful death statute…

  10. Court case · New York Supreme Court · April 18, 2016 · in the opinion

    DePriest v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2016)

    …Here, the evidence that plaintiffs' medical experts intend to submit has the potential to sufficiently establish a general connection between asbestos and mesothelioma, as well as a scientific expression of plaintiffs' exposure levels based on Stagnito…

  11. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 8, 2017 · in the opinion

    Paulus v. JM Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2017)

    …so by letter brief, and they have done so. Appellant argues the court retains jurisdiction under the general authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 128 (courts have power to "compel obedience to its judgments, orders…

  12. Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 14, 2016 · in the opinion

    Warren v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2016)

    …plaintiff cites to general cases holding that evidence is a procedural issue and is thus governed by the forum state.\[8\] Plaintiff also cites the statement in People v Greenburg (50 AD3d 195 \[1st Dept 2008…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 27, 2021 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. JM Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021)

    …litigant to rely on abstract generalities, but must instruct in specific terms that relate the party's [\1088] theory to the particular case." (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 \[34 Cal…

  14. Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 12, 2012 · in the opinion

    Lovaglio v. AW Chesterton Co. (2012)

    …to obtain cross-examination is in any sense attributable to the cross-examiner's own consent or fault, the lack of cross-examination is of course no objection — according to the general principle... that an opportunity…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 1, 2014 · in the opinion

    Collin v. Calportland Company (2014)

    …Corp. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1231 (Casey).) In Casey, the plaintiff accused the defendant, a general contractor, of exposing him to asbestos at jobsites where the plaintiff worked for a subcontractor. (Id. at p…

  16. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · September 26, 2013 · in the opinion

    Howard v. AW Chesterton Co. (2013)

    …reports in asbestos cases must contain a discussion of the methodology supporting the expert opinion. There are enough nuances pertaining to this subject that we are unable to make such a general pronouncement here. We recognize…