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

Search

15 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · January 31, 1986 · in the opinion

    Knauer v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …federal judiciary an equal power, and certainly no such judicial power could reasonably be inferred from the grant of authority to the Supreme Court to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure. When matters of state…

  2. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · February 28, 1986 · in the opinion

    Joyce v. AC and S., Inc. (1986)

    No ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed outside of the employment shall be compensable, except: (1) When it follows as an incident of occupational disease as defined in this title; or…

  3. Court case · Minnesota Supreme Court · May 14, 1982 · in the opinion

    DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (1982)

    …the court concluded that because the tolling provisions of the general limitations statute were in existence prior to the enactment of the wrongful death statute the legislature "could not possibly have had in mind that the…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · August 1, 1983

    Hargrave v. Fibreboard Corp. (1983)

    …or alter ego liability, for its subsidiary's acts merely because it owns all the stock and sets general policy while corporate separateness is observed. A party that does not raise fact issues on its pleaded…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota · January 11, 1982 · in the opinion

    Bertrand v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …discretion to determine when it should be applied. 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…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 26, 1982 · in the opinion

    Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …Borel, we conclude that Borel, while conclusive as to the general matter of a duty to warn on the part of manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation products, is ultimately ambiguous as to certain key issues. As…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · January 14, 1980 · in the opinion

    Mooney v. Fibreboard Corp. (1980)

    …discretion to determine when it should be applied. 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…

  8. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · January 25, 1991 · in the opinion

    Moran v. G. & WH Corson, Inc. (1991)

    …with Bob Hinks. Q. About that knowledge? A. A general discussion, a light general thing that I had read about in the paper or, you know, not actually getting into detail. Q. You read about what…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · March 13, 1981 · in the opinion

    Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)

    …to be persuaded that the choice of law made in Flatt is correct. That is, under any standard, federal law applies. Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 [\1361] (5th Cir. 1975); Willis v…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin · January 9, 1981 · in the opinion

    Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1981)

    …one of the occasional hardships necessarily incident to a law arbitrarily making legal remedies contingent on mere lapse of time.'"' (Emphasis added.)" Applying the general rules set forth above on interpretation of Wisconsin statutes of limitations…

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit · July 30, 1982 · in the opinion

    Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …first action may expressly reserve plaintiff's right to maintain second action). \[35\] Johns-Manville has catalogued an impressive array of court decisions exemplifying the general res judicata rule against splitting an indivisible cause of action…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi · November 21, 1980 · in the opinion

    McCarty v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1980)

    …1969) the Court stated: "Because this is a diversity case, the law of the state where the district court sat controls questions [\339] of res judicata and estoppel. See also Aerojet-General Aviation Corp. v. Askew…

  13. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 3, 1982 · in the opinion

    Staiano v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1982)

    …Pa.R.App.P. 301(a). Appellants acknowledge the general rule that an issue not argued below may not be argued on appeal, but nevertheless assert that their argument is not waived. They say: [\293] The…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · May 30, 1980 · in the opinion

    Migues v. Nicolet Industries, Inc. (1980)

    …in recognition of certain policy concerns, pro rata apportionment between joint tortfeasors. The Court has noted with some emphasis the later decision of the Texas Supreme Court in General Motors Corporation v. Simmons, 558 S.W…

  15. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · December 7, 1981 · in the opinion

    Migues v. Fibreboard Corp. (1981)

    …S.Ct. 687, 42 L.Ed.2d 688 (1974); and has been adopted by the Texas courts, see Turner v. General Motors Corporation, 584 S.W.2d 844, 851 (Tex.1979); Lopez v. Aro Corp., 584…