23 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · July 8, 1988 · in the opinion
Knox v. AC & S, Inc. (1988)
…any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or otherwise come to be located." State v. General Electric Co., 592 F.Supp. 291, 295 (N.D. NY 1984) (citation omitted)…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 1996
Egan v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (1996)
…appeals court affirmed the bench-trial judgment against Owens-Corning Fiberglass (OCF), including the $350,000 general damages award and the set-off ruling, and rejected the plaintiff's request for punitive damages under Ohio law.…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · Connecticut Supreme Court · August 12, 2008 · in the opinion
Deschenes v. Transco, Inc. (2008)
…the previous disability and the second injury which is materially and substantially greater than the disability that would have resulted from the second injury alone," which would have entitled him to full compensation under General Statutes …
-
Court case · Connecticut Supreme Court · November 27, 2007 · in the opinion
Deschenes v. Transco, Inc. (2007)
…the previous disability and the second injury which is materially and substantially greater than the disability that would have resulted from the second injury alone," which would have entitled him to full compensation under General Statutes …
-
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 · 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…
-
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…
-
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 · 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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · May 1, 1981 · in the opinion
Fusco v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1981)
…1975) is not in point. In Kellum, the court determined that the United States in general was not subject to state statutes of limitations; however, nothing in the opinion indicates that a state statute of limitations…
-
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 · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 30, 1999 · in the opinion
Porter Hayden Company v. Wyche (1999)
…to the earliest diagnosis, from adenocarcinoma is 13.2 years." Although Porter Hayden seems to take issue in its reply brief with the use of general epidemiological testimony to draw inferences in specific cases, in Grimshaw…
-
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…