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

Search

42 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 3

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa · July 16, 1998

    Harder v. ACandS, Inc. (1998)

    The federal district court denied General Electric's motion for summary judgment, holding that Iowa's fifteen-year statute of repose did not bar the Harders' claims against GE over asbestos insulation blankets. Under Iowa Code…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · July 26, 2023

    Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023)

    …shares of fault of those released parties if their fault is proven at trial. The plaintiffs said the releases covered only asbestosis, were too general, and were inadmissible. The court found the releases authenticated and admissible…

  3. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · December 31, 2007 · in the opinion

    Penn v. A-Best Prods. Co. (2007)

    …Rimmel, for appellee Mobil Corporation. Oldham & Dowling, Reginald S. Kramer, and Terri L. Nass, for appellees General Electric Company and CBS Corporation. Trenz, McKay & Knabe Co., LPA, and Tim McKay, for appellee R.E. Kramig. Tucker…

  4. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 3, 1997 · in the opinion

    Anchor Packing Co. v. Grimshaw (1997)

    …3\] (Emphasis added). In addition, the legislative history of C.J. § 11-108 indicates that the General Assembly intended that the cap apply broadly, as opposed to only malpractice claims. In January 1986, Senate Bill No…

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit · January 31, 1990

    Kraciun v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1990)

    …Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1953 onward (except Navy 1954-1958); service crew, general maintenance worker and electrical maintenance worker E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1948-1985; maintenance person…

  6. 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…

  7. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 30, 1996 · in the opinion

    Armstrong World Industries v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. (1996)

    …were not dangerous. There was concern about the dustiness of Armaspray — but not so much for health reasons as for reasons of cleanup and potential damage to electrical equipment. The specifications for Armaspray called for good…

  8. 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…

  9. Court case · New York Supreme Court · April 14, 2020

    Graul v. Tecumseh Prods. Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2020)

    …plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against Tecumseh; the plaintiffs lost as to Tecumseh. New York courts lacked general jurisdiction over a corporation incorporated and headquartered in Michigan, and lacked specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a…

  10. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · November 29, 1993

    Angelo v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1993)

    …It upheld exclusion of a treating doctor's deposition because the Angelos had not shown diligent efforts to secure his attendance. It found the reverse bifurcation proper, and the jury instructions and general verdict form adequate.

  11. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · December 14, 2004 · in the opinion

    Rourke v. Amchem Products, Inc. (2004)

    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 for other reasons, the application of offensive estoppel…

  12. Court case · U.S. Supreme Court · June 25, 1997 · in the opinion

    Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor (1997)

    "But the settlement does more than simply provide a general recovery fund," the Court of Appeals immediately added; "\[r\]ather, it makes important judgments on how recovery is to be allocated among different kinds of plaintiffs…

  13. 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…

  14. Court case · New York Supreme Court · March 1, 2019

    Matter of Marzigliano v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2019)

    …judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, finding fact issues on general and specific causation. A defendant cannot win summary judgment by pointing to gaps in plaintiffs' proof; it must make a prima facie showing…

  15. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · April 14, 1995 · in the opinion

    Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1995)

    …the petit jury venire. The Supreme Court announced a general rule that "\[t\]he denial or impairment of the right \[to exercise peremptory challenges\] is reversible error without a showing of prejudice." Swain, 380 U.S…

  16. Court case · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · July 7, 1993 · in the opinion

    Behrendt v. GAF Corp. (1993)

    …fishing, woodworking. Mr. Behrendt's pain symptoms eventually led to a diagnosis of mesothelioma in December 1990. He was taken to the Emergency Room at Community General Osteopathic Hospital, Harrisburg, on December 23, 1990 with a…

  17. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · June 27, 1996 · in the opinion

    Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc. (1996)

    …requirements of predominance and superiority. In In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir.) \[Hereinafter GM Trucks\], cert. denied sub nom. General Motors Corp. v…

  18. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 1, 1993 · in the opinion

    Watkins v. Fibreboard Corp. (1993)

    …asbestos was the producing cause. This is a basic issue in this case, articulated to some extent in the trial judge's general instructions, but not clearly articulated by either party, except perhaps by the plaintiffs…

  19. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · January 25, 1991 · in the opinion

    Moran v. G. & WH Corson, Inc. (1991)

    …with Bob Hinks. Q. About that knowledge? A. A general discussion, a light general thing that I had read about in the paper or, you know, not actually getting into detail. Q. You read about what…

  20. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · February 5, 1985 · in the opinion

    Meehan v. Celotex Corp. (1985)

    …of the negligent act. Indeed, as Gaboury itself says: "In determining the proper forum in which to bring suit under the general statute fixing venue where the cause of action \arose', or \accrued', the \injury occurred…