21 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · April 3, 1992 · in the opinion
Sealover v. Carey Canada (1992)
…the court must consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. White v. Westinghouse Electric Company, 862 F.2d 56, 59 (3d Cir.1988). Evidentiary issues Defendants contend that: (1) plaintiff…
-
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…
-
Product picture · Product Pictures
Label: RED TOP FIRECODE PLASTER (UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY) (2)
…scan of a bag label for Red Top Firecode Plaster by United States Gypsum Company, with a USG logo and flame illustrations, beside a separate 'General Description' section heading graphic, on a page stamped Exhibit 214.
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee · January 9, 1984 · in the opinion
Johnson County, Tenn. v. US Gypsum Co. (1984)
While it is true that contractors who perform construction work for the state operated universities are not protected by general statutes of limitation, see Dunn v. W.F. Jameson and Sons, Inc., 569 S.W.2d…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · June 20, 2001 · in the opinion
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. US Gypsum Co. (2001)
…is no need, therefore, to apply standards which pinpoint the date of a plaintiff's injury in a general claim for asbestos damages; the plaintiff has already specified its injury in its complaint. Prudential did not…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · Wisconsin Supreme Court · October 27, 1999 · in the opinion
Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999)
…Wisconsin would not turn a deaf ear to argument that in a particular sort of case the policy reasons [\236] for allowing an exception override the policy reasons for applying the general rule. 236 Patzer v…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · August 12, 1996 · in the opinion
Nelson v. Keene Corp. (1996)
…pleadings shall be according to the rules." 735 ILCS 5/2-201(a) (West 1994). General jurisdiction is invoked in the trial court when an action is filed and a summons is issued and served upon…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · May 7, 1992 · in the opinion
Sealover v. Carey Canada (1992)
…112 S.Ct. 1671, 118 L.Ed.2d 391 (New Rule 238 withstands constitutional challenges on due process and equal protection grounds.); Leonard v. General Motors Corp., Civil No. 88-2380, slip op. at 5 (E…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 19, 2017 · in the opinion
Aquitato v. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2017)
…Mass toxic tort cases, including asbestos cases, may be consolidated if they meet the requirements of the general rule governing consolidation of cases (In re Asbestos Litigation, 173 F.R.D.81, 38 Fed.R.Serv…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware · February 19, 2003 · in the opinion
In re Usg Corp. (2003)
…In In re USG Corporation, one sees these general truths played out in detail. The debtors argues that "\[t\]he vast majority of asbestos personal injury suits filed today are meritless nonmalignant claims of minor pleural…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Kansas · May 2, 1991 · in the opinion
Harding v. Proko Industries, Inc. (1991)
…find Kansas or Texas law to be applicable to the plaintiff's claims. Section 6(2) of the Second Restatement identifies seven general considerations which are relevant to the resolution of a given conflict of laws…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · September 21, 1994 · in the opinion
Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc. (1994)
…I. Bressman, Budd, Larner, Gross, Rosenbaum, Greenberg and Sade, P.C., Cherry Hill, NJ, for General Reinsurance Corp., etal., third-party defendants. Michael J. Geraghty, Sean R. Kelly, David D'Aloia, Saiber, Schlesinger, Satz & Goldstein, Newark…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · February 8, 1990 · in the opinion
Barnett v. City of Yonkers (1990)
…News 1426, 1428. In the Asbestos Act, Congress directed the Attorney General of the United States to ascertain the feasibility of recovering "from any person determined" to be liable the costs of detecting, removing, and replacing…