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 · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · February 24, 2000 · in the opinion

    Vasura v. Acands (2000)

    …448, 451 (9th Cir.1994). Others have held that the relevant time period for ascertaining foreign state status is that in which the conduct at issue took place. See General Electric Capital Corp. v. Grossman, 991…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · August 24, 1989 · in the opinion

    District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation (1989)

    …hospitals, and government offices, are for the general use of the public, and hundreds or even thousands of people pass through each of them every day. Any child who grows up in the District and attends…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit · September 26, 1990 · in the opinion

    Hoffman v. Allied Corp. (1990)

    …however, that no asbestos products were used within the ordnance repair shop itself. [\1381] Leo Rapacilo was an electrician who worked in close proximity to asbestos products on the ships in dry dock at the shipyard…

  5. Court case · Delaware Superior Court · January 11, 2011

    Farrall v. Atlas Turner (In re Asbestos Litigation Limited TO Farrall, 2011)

    …holding the 1982 release barred James Farrall's new mesothelioma claims; the plaintiffs lost. A clear and unambiguous general release covering known and unknown, unmanifested injuries from asbestos exposure bars a later suit for a long…

  6. 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…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · May 24, 1983 · in the opinion

    Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard Corp. (1983)

    …forum. Defendants have not shown that any hardship complained of is the result of proceeding to trial now. Nor is there a showing that the difficulties inherent in the general situation, including potential judicial inefficiency, constitute…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · January 21, 1994 · in the opinion

    Tabolt v. Flintkote Co. (In re New York Asbestos Litigation, 1994)

    …at 982 F.2d 721 (2d Cir.1992), and the publication of numerous stories in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal — any well-informed citizen could possess general knowledge about Johns Manville, c.f.…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · November 6, 2001 · in the opinion

    Allied Signal, Inc. v. Herring (2001)

    …[\1036] Moreover, section 2 was enacted to extend the general limitations period in express recognition of the long latency period associated with asbestos-related diseases and illnesses. Extending the limitations period only for the very few…

  11. Court case · Delaware Superior Court · August 23, 1983 · in the opinion

    Nutt v. AC & S., Inc. (1983)

    …claims of mental anguish asserted by the plaintiff-wives are alleged in the amended complaints in broad and general language but are actually of two distinct types: mental anguish resulting from the witnessing of the physical…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · June 30, 1992 · in the opinion

    Feldman v. Owens-Illinois (In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litigation, 1992)

    …statute: "There is no justification for rewarding recalcitrant non-settling defendants by permitting them to apply the General Obligations Law offset in a manner that reduces or even obliterates their own liability in cases where plaintiffs…

  14. Court case · Ohio Supreme Court · October 14, 1987 · in the opinion

    Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1987)

    …it is important to understand that both alternative liability and market-share liability are exceptions to the general rule that a plaintiff has to prove an injury was caused by the negligence of a particular defendant…

  15. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · April 26, 1999 · in the opinion

    Holmes v. ACandS, Inc. (1999)

    …year discovery based statute of limitations applicable to product liability claims. The comprehensiveness of the medical malpractice act is evidence of the legislature's intent that it should prevail over the more general wrongful death statute…

  16. 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 …

  17. 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…

  18. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · April 7, 1981 · in the opinion

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

    …does not apply to cases already filed before the amendment was enacted. Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution states that the "general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, ..." Section 1.58(A)(1…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 14, 1994 · in the opinion

    Coates v. AC and S, Inc. (1994)

    …599 So.2d at 1062 n. 13. \[10\] Johnstone was a case under the general maritime law which adopted Louisiana law as the law of the adjacent state. \[11\] Defendants contend that the use of OSHA…

  20. 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…