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 · Florida District Court of Appeal · May 28, 2008

    Williams v. American Optical Corporation (2008)

    A group of Florida plaintiffs, including a personal representative for Wayne Smith, sued American Optical and other companies for asbestosis, which is lung disease and pleural thickening from asbestos exposure. They filed suit before Florida's 2005…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · March 12, 2019

    MacLachlan v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (2019)

    …furnace, where he wore protective coats and mittens he believed were made by American Optical. He also claimed exposure to a General Electric steam turbine aboard the USS Kennedy. American Optical moved for summary judgment. It…

  3. Court case · Washington Supreme Court · August 9, 2012 · in the opinion

    Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (2012)

    …Delaware corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; General Electric Company; Goulds Pumps (IPG), Inc.; and Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendants. No. 85535…

  4. Court case · Florida Supreme Court · July 8, 2011 · in the opinion

    American Optical Corporation v. Spiewak (2011)

    …does not accrue, for limitations purposes, until the injured party discovers or has a "duty to discover the act constituting an invasion of his legal rights." Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So. 2d 331, 334 …

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · December 23, 1981 · in the opinion

    Petes v. Hayes (1981)

    …was phrased "Does plaintiff, Alton Petes, suffer from disability or disease which specifically results from the inhalation of asbestos particles ..." (Emphasis added.) "Specifically" was not defined in the general charge. In its everyday usage, "specifically" is…

  6. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · September 30, 2013

    Cary v. American Optical Corporation (2013)

    …Watts moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Cary conceded there was no general jurisdiction but argued for specific jurisdiction and asked for more discovery. The court found it unclear whether Watts had purposely directed…

  7. Company document · Motley 1000 · April 4, 1968

    F. H. Zimmerman to L. B. Crowell on J-M's Health Safety Booklet (1968)

    What it shows Those present included Certain-teed, the Ruberoid division of General Aniline & Film, J-M, and Mrs. Clytia Chambers of Hill and Knowlton, J-M's public relations counsel, with whom the booklet was…

  8. 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…

  9. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · October 4, 2011

    Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. (2011)

    …at issue, and circumstantial evidence that a manufacturer bought the supplier's asbestos can create a fact question on exposure. A raw-asbestos supplier also owes the general duty of reasonable care. Causation; Product Identification; Expert…

  10. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · September 29, 1981 · in the opinion

    Bunker v. National Gypsum Co. (1981)

    …0 \ \ 0-9 \ 346 \ 89.6 \ 10.4 \ 36 \ 0 \ 0 \ \ ----------\ -------\ --------\ ----------\ ------\ ------\ ------\ \ Total \ 1,117 \ 51.5 \ 48.5 \ 366 \ 126 \ 50 \ The general purpose of a statute of limitations is to encourage prompt resolution of claims…

  11. Company document · Motley 1000 · April 17, 1968

    Frank H. Zimmerman of National Gypsum to C. L. Sheckler Opposing the Asbestos-Cement Health Safety Booklet (1968)

    …distribution of the booklet. The reasons given are: 1) No risk has been shown to the general public from exposure to asbestos-cement products manufactured for use in the building and construction industry. 2) The proposed…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · October 26, 1982 · in the opinion

    Bunker v. National Gypsum Co. (1982)

    …validity of that limitation, this Court held: "We recognize the general rule that the legislature is the primary judge as to whether the time allowed by a statute of limitations is reasonable. Although the determination of…

  14. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit · July 12, 1985 · in the opinion

    Lee v. Celotex Corp. (1985)

    …through 1976 contained asbestos. However, in paragraph 2 of the general objections to those interrogatories, National Gypsum states that it answers those interrogatories "with reference to products that may have been used to insulate pipes, boilers…

  15. 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…

  16. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · December 29, 1988 · in the opinion

    Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1988)

    …accrued to him not later than 1980. Furthermore, it should be noted that when the release was signed the Pecorinos did think about any exclusions or exceptions from the general, full and final release [\570] when…

  17. 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…

  18. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · December 13, 2014 · in the opinion

    Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. (2014)

    …to the trial court, Dr. Mark's testimony simply "does not carry the day" because it is of a general nature, and because plaintiffs did not have any evidence of specific causation, the court could not…

  19. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · December 14, 2010 · in the opinion

    Macias v. Mine Safety Appliances Co. (2010)

    …Macias acknowledges that Simonetta and Braaten "did announce a general rule that manufacturers have no duty to warn of dangers of a product that the manufacturer did not make\[,\]" but he argues that "\[t\]he specific…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of New York · August 15, 2012 · in the opinion

    Garner v. Ngc Bodily Injury Trust (2012)

    …injuries did not manifest within three years of exposure, and thus, would have otherwise been barred. See Jensen v. General Elec. Co., 82 N.Y.2d 77, 84 (1993). The statute provides: the three year period…