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

Search

26 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · March 30, 1983 · in the opinion

    Austin v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (1983)

    …appears that the tests are the same, since, in general "\[o\]nce admiralty jurisdiction is established, then all of the substantive rules and precepts peculiar to the law of the sea become applicable." Brance v. Shumann…

  2. Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · October 25, 1983 · in the opinion

    Froud v. Celotex Corp. (1983)

    …2d 199, 214-15, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 1595-96 (Black, J., dissenting); General Dynamics Corp., Electric Boat Division, v. Benefits Review Board (2d Cir.1977), 565 F.2d 208, 212; Williams v. Ray (1978), 146…

  3. Court case · Hawaii Supreme Court · May 3, 1984 · in the opinion

    Nobriga v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (1984)

    …P.2d 509 (1970), we noted that "\[t\]he general rule in measuring damages is \to give a sum of money to the person wronged which as nearly as possible, will restore him to the position…

  4. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · April 19, 1982 · in the opinion

    Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1982)

    …Rather, defendants state, the cost "will be borne by the public at large and reflected in a general, across the board increase in premiums to compensate for unanticipated risks." There is some truth in this assertion…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · January 22, 1986 · in the opinion

    Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1986)

    …they have already been punished enough. They stated to the trial judge that punitive damages serve to motivate "private attorneys general" to bring suit, but argued that persons injured by asbestos have motivation enough to sue…

  8. 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…

  9. Court case · Tennessee Supreme Court · June 7, 2011 · in the opinion

    Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc. (2011)

    …plans of reorganization for Raybestos and Johns Manville had been confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court before Mrs. Nye filed her complaint.\[11\] As a general matter, confirmation of the plan of reorganization ends the automatic stay…

  10. 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…

  11. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · June 10, 1986 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …Inc., Rapid American, Uni-Royal, Carolina Asbestos Co., J. Franklin Burke General Asbestos Co., Ruberoid Company, Keaseey Mattison Co., Asten Hill Manufacturing Co. Argued December 17, 1985. Filed June 10, 1986. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. [\60…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · January 21, 1985 · in the opinion

    Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)

    …As a consequence, federal courts would become increasingly responsible for establishing a general federal tort law in a manner we think is inconsistent with the teachings of Erie and the logic behind our federal system. Cf…

  14. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · December 30, 1982 · in the opinion

    Murphree v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (1982)

    …Tennessee's various statutes of limitations governing products liability actions has created troublesome problems for Tennessee courts in the past two decades. In 1969 the Tennessee Supreme Court in Jackson v. General Motors, 223 Tenn. 12…

  15. 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…

  16. 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…

  17. 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…

  18. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 23, 1984 · in the opinion

    Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984)

    …not prove that he presently suffers from that disease. In arguing that the cancer evidence was properly admissible, Jackson relies on the general rule of tort law that allows for recovery of all harms — past, present…

  19. Court case · Maine Supreme Judicial Court · January 17, 1984 · in the opinion

    Austin v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (1984)

    …at 799; Prosser, supra at 522. Recent cases typified by Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal.3d 725, 575 P.2d 1162, 144 Cal.Rptr. 380 (1978) (ordinary contributory negligence of plaintiff to be considered…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · October 28, 1981 · in the opinion

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

    …The defendants' first argument is that plaintiff's "survival" claim is time-barred under the law of the District of Columbia, which provides that the general period of limitations is three years. See D.C.Code …