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

Search

10 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 30, 2021

    Pizarro v. National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (2021)

    Renato Pizarro and his wife sued NASSCO, Pep Boys and other companies, alleging his mesothelioma came from asbestos exposure. The opinion describes two sources. One was the Navy overhaul of the USS Bristol County, where plaintiffs say NASSCO removed…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · November 9, 2021

    Data v. AO Smith Corporation (2021)

    Darlene Data sued many companies in her own right and as executrix of her husband Michael Data's estate. Mr. Data served in the Navy aboard the USS Newport News from 1969 to 1973. He later worked at Mesta Machine and then at the West Pittsburgh…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · July 28, 2016 · in the opinion

    Hillyer v. ABB (In re Asbestos Litigation Hillyer, 2016)

    …Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. Eaton Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. Gould Electronics Inc., Cross Defendant…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut · February 19, 2015 · in the opinion

    Bray v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (2015)

    …24 (Crane); 84:6-24 (same). He was able to recall only the brands Westinghouse and General Electric without prompting. Choate was prompted to describe certain elements of the products he recalled, such as their label…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · June 24, 2024 · in the opinion

    Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2024)

    …causation standard, and then arguing that the second "substantial factor" prong is not met). Only in its reply does Eaton raise doubts about Plaintiff's actual bystander exposure to its asbestos-containing electrical products. Dkt. No…

  6. Court case · Arizona Supreme Court · August 21, 2013 · in the opinion

    Pounders v. Enserch E & C, Inc. (2013)

    …light of § 175's comment (a), which states that "the law applicable to wrongful death is selected by the same principles as control selection of the law applicable to personal injuries in general (see § 146)." ¶ 20…

  7. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 18, 2007 · in the opinion

    Bugosh v. Allen Refractories Company (2007)

    …applicable. ¶ 28 The doctrine of judicial estoppel holds that "\[a\]s a general rule, a party to an action is estopped from assuming a position inconsistent with his or her assertion in a previous action, if…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · June 27, 1996 · in the opinion

    Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc. (1996)

    …requirements of predominance and superiority. In In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir.) \[Hereinafter GM Trucks\], cert. denied sub nom. General Motors Corp. v…

  9. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · March 15, 2007 · in the opinion

    Bugosh v. Allen Refractories Co. (2007)

    …approach a situation to which the term judicial estoppel is applicable. ¶ 28 The doctrine of judicial estoppel holds that "\[a\]s a general rule, a party to an action is estopped from assuming a position inconsistent…

  10. Court case · Arizona Court of Appeals · April 17, 2012 · in the opinion

    Pounders v. Enserch E & C, Inc. (2012)

    …1971) ("The fact ... that one of the parties is domiciled ... in a given state will usually carry little weight of itself."); Ferren v. General Motors Corp., 137 N.H. 423, 427, 628 A.2d 265 (1993…