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

Search

20 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 21, 2004

    Jessop v. Acf Industries, LLC (2004)

    …Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Topeka shops and rail yard; Topeka, Kansas rail yard of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway, Topeka electrician Topeka, Kansas rail yard of Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Topeka sixteen year career

  2. 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…

  3. 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…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · February 24, 2000 · in the opinion

    Vasura v. Acands (2000)

    …448, 451 (9th Cir.1994). Others have held that the relevant time period for ascertaining foreign state status is that in which the conduct at issue took place. See General Electric Capital Corp. v. Grossman, 991…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · October 31, 2008

    Kummer v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2008)

    …remained on causation, and granted Ford's and GM's unopposed motions, so Mrs. Kummer's claims against Viacom go forward. Under general maritime law, using the Pennsylvania-based "regularity, frequency and proximity" test, direct evidence…

  6. 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…

  7. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 7, 1998 · in the opinion

    ACandS v. Abate (1998)

    The Western Electric plant was comprised of several buildings and was approximately three miles long and one-and-one-quarter miles deep. Morrow indicated that he worked primarily in the wire insulation building until he became…

  8. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · October 24, 2002

    Vaughn v. Ford Motor Co. (2002)

    The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing judgment for Ford, General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, Allied Signal, Borg-Warner and Uniroyal, holding the exclusion of plaintiff's experts was an abuse of discretion but harmless because…

  9. Court case · South Carolina Supreme Court · April 30, 2007

    Henderson v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2007)

    James Henderson, a North Carolina resident, and his wife sued several manufacturers in South Carolina. They claimed he developed mesothelioma from asbestos-containing products he encountered working for many years as a boilermaker, pipefitter and…

  10. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 30, 2010

    Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2010)

    …causation testimony on scientific theories the parties never raised and no expert supported, and extrapolation from higher to lower doses and the absence of supporting epidemiology do not by themselves defeat general acceptance. Causation; Expert Testimony…

  11. Court case · Georgia Court of Appeals · March 14, 2001

    Hoffman v. AC&S, Inc. (2001)

    …site at some unspecified time during the 1960s is insufficient. An expert's general opinion that workers were exposed to asbestos products does not supply the missing link to a particular defendant. Product Identification; Expert Testimony…

  12. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · March 17, 1999

    Novicki v. Rapid-American Corp. (1999)

    …and Rapid-American conceded it did not. The case therefore fell under section 5, the general product liability limitation and repose provision. Because the parties had not briefed section 5, the court remanded for further argument…

  13. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · May 23, 2012 · in the opinion

    Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2012)

    He did not question the pathologist's opinion in terms of general causation, but he expressed circumspection concerning how that opinion translated to substantial-factor causation. See N.T., Aug. 17, 2005, at 105. For example…

  14. Court case · Texas Supreme Court · November 30, 2000 · in the opinion

    Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp. (2000)

    …American argues that Pustejovsky's lack of knowledge of the scope of his damages from his exposure to asbestos does not affect the accrual of his cause of action. Following these general rules, Rapid American contends…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · April 15, 2015 · in the opinion

    Stellar v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2015)

    …Gen. Motors Corp., 170 F.3d 367 (3d Cir.1999). \[7\] Although not unique to this Court, or to asbestos litigation in general, the substance of Plaintiffs' complaint merits discussion. Asbestos litigation in Northampton County, Pennsylvania…

  16. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · November 6, 2001 · in the opinion

    Allied Signal, Inc. v. Herring (2001)

    …[\1036] Moreover, section 2 was enacted to extend the general limitations period in express recognition of the long latency period associated with asbestos-related diseases and illnesses. Extending the limitations period only for the very few…

  17. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · January 17, 2001 · in the opinion

    Crooks v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (2001)

    …principle of stare decisis, the civil law statutes and codes are usually drafted in more general terms than common-law statutes and thus depend more on judges to render them concrete through judicial interpretation. Id. The…

  18. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · July 21, 2010 · in the opinion

    Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2010)

    …breath. In so finding, Dr. Gelfand noted that, while the obstructive lung condition due to smoking showed "some improvement," in general, the reduction in lung diffusion remained severe. See Report of Dr. Gelfand concerning Frederick Summers…

  19. Court case · New York Supreme Court · December 22, 2017 · in the opinion

    Appleton v. Allied Signal (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…

  20. Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 29, 1997 · in the opinion

    Mtr. OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (1997)

    …attributed to the settling defendants would have been increased and that of Carey correspondingly decreased. Such a result would clearly be damaging to the plaintiffs by reason of the application of General Obligations Law § 15-108…