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

Search

60 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 3

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota · December 1, 2022

    Pyle v. AH Bennett Co. (2022)

    Brian Pyle and Glenn Frericks filed separate federal lawsuits in North Dakota against many companies, alleging state-law claims arising from their occupational exposure to asbestos. The opinion does not name their diseases or describe where they…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · August 31, 1982 · in the opinion

    Neal v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd. (1982)

    …cite the cases of Toppi v. United States, 332 F.Supp. 513 (E.D.Pa.1971) and Lockett v. General Electric Co., 376 F.Supp. 1201 (E.D.Pa.1974), aff'd, 511 F.2d 1394 …

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · June 14, 1990

    Fagiola v. National Gypsum Co. AC & S., Inc. (1990)

    …not warrant reversal. Product Identification; Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: Electric Boat shipyard (General Dynamics); General Dynamics Electric Boat Shipyard, Groton quality assurance engineer General Dynamics Electric Boat Shipyard Groton late 1950's and 1960's

  4. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · April 5, 2010 · in the opinion

    Buttitta v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2010)

    …CO., C.L. ZIMMERMAN of DELAWARE, a successor corporation to C.L. ZIMMERMAN COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS CORP., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a successor corporation to ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC., and as a successor in interest to HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL…

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit · January 31, 1990

    Kraciun v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1990)

    …Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1953 onward (except Navy 1954-1958); service crew, general maintenance worker and electrical maintenance worker E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1948-1985; maintenance person…

  6. 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…

  7. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · March 6, 1981 · in the opinion

    Locke v. Johns-Manville (1981)

    …the defendants in the November 1978 order appealed from. The record shows that since approximately 1948 plaintiff had been employed as an industrial electrician by various contractors at sites in Virginia, New York and North Carolina…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Colorado · March 13, 1989 · in the opinion

    Miller v. Celotex Corp. (1989)

    …defendants. I conclude that plaintiff has failed to present sufficient persuasive evidence for a reasonable jury to rule in his favor on the running of the statute of limitations. See Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith…

  9. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · March 27, 1989 · in the opinion

    Dube v. Pittsburgh Corning (1989)

    …768 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir.1985) (relying in part on statute authorizing Surgeon General to release test data "at such times and to such extent as \[he\] may determine to be [\799] in the public…

  10. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · January 30, 1986 · in the opinion

    Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (1986)

    …a given industry. They are often set forth in some type of code, such as a building code or electrical code, or they may be adopted by the trade organization of a given industry. State of…

  11. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · December 17, 1985 · in the opinion

    Trimper v. Porter-Hayden (1985)

    …n action under \[the Wrongful Death\] subtitle shall be filed within three years after the death of the injured person." Limitations on survival actions, however, are provided by the general statute of limitations, CJ § 5-101…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana · April 22, 2014 · in the opinion

    Genusa v. Asbestos Corporation Limited (2014)

    …claims against various defendants arising out of alleged asbestos exposure at Avondale Shipyards. Some of the defendants brought a third-party contribution action against Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the manufacturer of marine turbines for the U.S…

  14. Court case · North Carolina Supreme Court · November 5, 1985 · in the opinion

    Wilder v. Amatex Corp. (1985)

    …E.2d 281 (1972); Galligan v. Chapel Hill, 276 N.C. 172, 171 S.E.2d 427 (1970); Domestic Electric Service Co., Inc. v. Rocky Mount, 20 N.C.App. 347, 201 S.E.2d 508…

  15. 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…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia · July 19, 1984 · in the opinion

    Joyce v. AC & s., Inc. (1984)

    …asbestos insulation materials. Plaintiff, an industrial electrician who had worked with asbestos insulation from 1948 to 1972, claimed that inhalation of asbestos fibers and dust during that period had caused him to develop mesothelioma, a cancerous…

  17. 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…

  18. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · September 22, 1987

    In re Asbestos Litigation (1987)

    Asbestos manufacturers defending personal injury suits in the federal district court in New Jersey challenged a New Jersey Supreme Court rule. Under Beshada and later cases, asbestos defendants could not use the "state-of-the-art" defense, which…

  19. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · July 28, 2011

    Buttitta v. Allied-Signal, Inc. (2011)

    …accept it can be held liable for the fee, cost and interest awards the rule provides. The award did not violate due process. Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: General Motors Corporation warehouse General Motors Corporation warehouse

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · June 28, 2021

    Klick v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (2021)

    The court granted Boeing's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding no general or specific jurisdiction over Boeing in New Jersey, denied jurisdictional discovery, and declined to transfer the claims, so Boeing won…