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

Search

5 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · July 25, 2018

    Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent (2018)

    … Government Contractor Defense and Removal; Venue, Removal and Transfer Worksites: General Electric building, 32nd and Chestnut Streets; U.S.S. Cambria; General Electric; office building at 32nd and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia electronics officer and subsequently communications…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · June 28, 2017

    Herman v. Ametek (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI), 2017)

    Maynard Herman and his wife Irene sued Ametek, Inc. and other companies in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. They alleged that Mr. Herman's work exposed him to asbestos and that he developed mesothelioma. Defendants removed the case to federal…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · July 31, 2012 · in the opinion

    Thurmon v. Scapa Waycross (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2012)

    …Plaintiffs named forty entities as defendants including Scapa Waycross, Warren Pumps and Honeywell International. Defendant General Electric removed the action to federal court on April 29, 2011. It was then transferred to MDL 875 on May…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · June 15, 2016 · in the opinion

    Rabovsky v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2016)

    …Wheeler Energy Corporation, Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC (individually and as successor-in-interest to Garlock, Inc.), General Electric Company, Goulds Pumps, Inc., The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company d/b/a A&P Supermarkets, Honeywell International…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois · April 9, 2014

    Hasenberg v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2014)

    …not make clear which defendants were sued in which counts, the court dismissed it without prejudice and ordered an amended complaint by May 9, 2014. It also noted general personal jurisdiction standards for a later motion.