17 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · April 17, 2017
McClung v. 3M Company (2017)
The court severed the claims against General Electric and transferred them to the Southern District of West Virginia, granting General Electric's request and denying its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as moot…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois · June 30, 2011
Sublett v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2011)
…finding General Electric had not established federal officer removal jurisdiction. A removing defendant must show the Navy prevented it from complying with state-law warning duties to establish federal officer jurisdiction and the government contractor defense…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · May 21, 2019
Viale v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2019)
Debbie Viale, individually and as representative of the estate of Ronald Viale, and Amber Jacobs sued many companies, alleging that Mr. Viale was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products at various work sites and developed mesothelioma,…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · October 3, 2017
Devries v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2017)
Roberta Devries and Shirley McAfee, widows of two deceased Navy veterans, sued several equipment manufacturers in Pennsylvania state court. They alleged their husbands contracted cancer from asbestos exposure on Navy ships, and in McAfee's case the…
-
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, Western District of Washington · June 10, 2019
Deem v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019)
Sherri Deem sued on her own behalf and for the estate of her husband, Thomas Deem, who worked at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard from 1974 to 1981 as an apprentice and journeyman outside machinist. The complaint alleged he was exposed to…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · March 16, 2011
Kiser v. AW Chesterton Co. (2011)
Phyllis Kiser, as executor of her husband Orvin Kiser, Sr.'s estate, brought a wrongful death suit in October 2010 against a group of companies whose asbestos-containing products were alleged to have caused his mesothelioma. He was diagnosed with…
-
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 · U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina · January 19, 2021 · in the opinion
Robertson v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2021)
…worked on: Cutler-Hammer, Squire D., Siemens, Ellis, Allen-Bradley, Westinghouse, and General Electric. Id. at 101:8-22. Eaton has liability for Cutler-Hammer products. \[See ECF No. 384 p.2\]. Watson testified that he…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · March 13, 2012 · in the opinion
Rabovsky v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2012)
…the order of November 1, 2011, denied Pennsylvania Electric's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. As a general rule, a magistrate judge cannot "determine" a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See 28 U.S…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Central District of California · September 6, 2013 · in the opinion
Lara v. CBS Corp. (2013)
…2013. United States District Court, C.D. California. CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL AUDREY B. COLLINS, District Judge. Proceedings: ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand (In Chambers) Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Immediately Remand Plaintiffs…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · December 18, 2015 · in the opinion
May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2015)
…federal district court in Illinois that, applying maritime law, carved out an exception to what it called the "bare metal defense"\[13\]: In general, consistent with the bare metal defense, a manufacturer is not liable for…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 1, 2018 · in the opinion
Bucci v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2018)
…and right lungs, which has spread to his brain. He is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos from approximately 1975 through the 1980s while employed as a general utility mechanic, mechanic B, and heavy equipment…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Utah · August 31, 2022 · in the opinion
Hipwell v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2022)
…2020) ("For maritime tort cases in particular, \we rely on general principles of negligence law.'" (citation omitted)). \[2\] This ruling does not preclude Hipwell from moving before trial to exclude specific pieces of evidence related to…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 11, 2023 · in the opinion
Lebeau v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023)
… to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with.'"\[66\] Unlike the general removal statute, which must be strictly construed in favor of remand, the Federal Officer Removal statute's language must be liberally…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · May 6, 2014 · in the opinion
McMann v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2014)
…In this way, the statute "promotes litigating federal defenses in a federal forum so that \the operations of the general government \[are not\] arrested at the will of one of \[the states\]." Ruppel v. CBS Corp…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · October 3, 2014 · in the opinion
May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2014)
…2d at 1369 ("\[t\]he rationale underpinning the general rule of strict liability is that it logically and fairly places the loss caused by a defective product on those who create the risk and reap the…