17 results for “General Electric”
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · June 3, 2011
Wingfield v. John Crane (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI), 2011)
The court granted the Moving Defendants' motion (John Crane, Warren Pumps, General Electric, Georgia-Pacific and Crane Co.) to exclude Emmett Wingfield's videotaped deposition, a ruling against the plaintiff. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 804…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · July 29, 2011
Corley v. Bill Vann Co. (In re Liability Litigation, 2011)
The executor of Charles Corley's estate sued a group of companies in Alabama state court under the Alabama Wrongful Death Act. Mr. Corley had died of mesothelioma in October 2009. The case was removed to federal court and then sent to the asbestos…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 3, 2013
Ambruso v. Goulds Pumps (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2013)
…D. Roosevelt electrical engineer 1950s-1980s; shipfitter and seaman in the United States Navy Brooklyn Navy Yard Brooklyn 1940s; shipfitter and seaman in the United States Navy USS Chicago 1940s; insulator 1950s-1990s; general laborer, bus…
-
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…
-
Court case · Mississippi Supreme Court · October 14, 2010
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Pittman (2010)
Lonnie Pittman was named as a plaintiff in a December 2002 asbestos suit against many companies. Defendants later learned he had died in March 2001, almost two years before the suit was filed. His widow, Mary Pittman, was substituted as plaintiff…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · August 8, 2011 · in the opinion
Wangen v. AW Chesterton Company (2011)
…k/a VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to CBS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, and GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1-800, Defendants. No. 65258-3-I. Filed: August 8, 2011.…
-
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…
-
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.
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · June 5, 2006 · in the opinion
Dankenbrink v. Foster Wheeler (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2006)
…products during overlapping periods of time from the 1940's to the 1990's so that the state of the art testimony and other expert testimony in a general way will be substantially common to all…
-
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…