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

Search

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

  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 · Mississippi Supreme Court · December 12, 1990 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Edwards (1990)

    … 15-1-35, citing the general rule that the statute began to run from the date of publication of the allegedly libelous statement to a third person. Staheli argued that the statute did not begin to…

  7. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · July 24, 1979 · in the opinion

    Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos & Magnesia Materials Co. (1979)

    …defective product. See Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 69 S.Ct. 1018, 11 A.L.R.2d 252; Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. Barker, 228 F.2d 842; Brush Beryllium Co. v. Meckley, 284…

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · March 25, 2003

    Jurich v. Garlock, Inc. (2003)

    …applied. One statute covers asbestos claims against those who mined and sold asbestos. The other is the general ten-year statute of repose for product claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The…

  11. 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.

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. 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…

  15. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · August 13, 1982 · in the opinion

    Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1982)

    …to his health. We thus regard Wisconsin Natural Gas to be an exceptional application of the more general rule that the cause of action accrues when the asbestos-caused disease becomes diagnosable — e.g., provable by…

  16. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · June 30, 1992 · in the opinion

    Feldman v. Owens-Illinois (In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litigation, 1992)

    …statute: "There is no justification for rewarding recalcitrant non-settling defendants by permitting them to apply the General Obligations Law offset in a manner that reduces or even obliterates their own liability in cases where plaintiffs…

  17. 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…

  18. 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…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · June 23, 1999 · in the opinion

    Lambert v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1999)

    …we must address two issues. First, we must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether the incident had "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce." Id. (quoting Sisson v. Ruby…

  20. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 20, 1992 · in the opinion

    Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1992)

    …TAMILIA, KELLY and JOHNSON, JJ. [\442] WIEAND, Judge: The general issue in this asbestos exposure action is whether Pennsylvania, in the context of asbestos actions, shall be a one-disease or two-disease state. More specifically…