27 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · September 8, 2010
Horn v. A.W. Chesterson Co. (In re Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2010)
Ten asbestos cases, brought by plaintiffs represented by the same law firm, were assigned to one New York County judge for trial. Eight of the plaintiffs, alleging mesothelioma, asked the court to consolidate their cases into three groups for joint…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 27, 2010 · in the opinion
Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. (2010)
…omitted.) Here, the jury's findings on negligent failure to warn therefore do not preclude a finding that the trial court erred in failing to instruct on strict liability. (See Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp. v. Superior…
-
Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · February 6, 2008 · in the opinion
Plympton v. American Standard (inc.) (2008)
…L. 1956 §8-2-14.\[2\] I Facts and Travel The Plaintiff and decedent, Wayne Plympton, worked as a general contractor during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Plympton Deposition dated May 20, 2005, at 53…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 17, 2016 · in the opinion
Cicio v. American Biltrite (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2016)
…and insulation. In the 1970s, Keeny worked for PSI, a division of Warner Electric, as a senior applications engineer and regional sales manager, where he inspected brakes and clutches at various commercial and industrial worksites, including…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 21, 2016 · in the opinion
Casey v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. (2016)
…the following information: a. Proffered Opinion Mr. van der Bogert was given a "pretty general, broad" task: "Read the testimony and form an opinion relative to the interactions or potential interactions between, in this case specifically…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2010
Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)
The court denied all four Daubert motions, allowing plaintiffs' causation experts (Brody, limited to general causation, and Legier), defense industrial hygienist Dyson's dose reconstruction testimony, and defendants' causation experts to testify. Expert testimony is admissible…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 24, 2019
Godfrey v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2019)
…as to Kaiser Gypsum. A defendant that preserved its personal jurisdiction defense in its answer is not subject to general jurisdiction in New York unless it is incorporated or has its principal place of business there…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · April 14, 2020
Montell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2020)
…and cross-claims against it, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for jurisdictional discovery. A New York court lacks general jurisdiction over a corporation not incorporated or headquartered in New York, and lacks specific jurisdiction under…
-
Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · December 8, 2021
Hoff v. Certainteed Corp. (2021)
…several companies, including Kaiser Gypsum, saying he was exposed to asbestos in drywall joint compound. Hoff worked for general contractor R.A. Gray Company, where he framed and finished buildings while drywall was sanded nearby, and…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division · May 21, 2024
Seen v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2024)
…suffering award that deviates materially from reasonable compensation under CPLR 5501(c) must be reduced or retried, and under General Obligations Law § 15-108 settlement amounts paid by settling defendants are deducted from the total award…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware · May 20, 2013 · in the opinion
In re Specialty Products Holding Corp. (2013)
…Tr. 1/11/13 at 91:16-21 (Vasquez). Dr. Vasquez also considered whether Debtors' experience is in line with general trends in asbestos litigation. Tr. 1/11/13 at 91:22-92:13 (Vasquez). That…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · April 9, 2008
Barnes v. AO Smith Water Products Co. (2008)
…the Montross, Perdicaro, Enea and Iqbal cases separate, over the defendants' general opposition. Under CPLR 602(a), actions with common questions of law or fact may be tried jointly. The Malcolm factors guide the choice, and…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · December 26, 2001 · in the opinion
Burns v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (2001)
… John Crane, Inc.; DAP, Inc.; Fibreboard Corporation; GAF Corporation; General Refractories Company; Harbison-Walker Refractories Company; Harcros Chemicals, Inc., as Successor-in-Interest to Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company; Kaiser Refractories, A Division of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · December 19, 2014 · in the opinion
Konstantin v. 640 Third Ave. Assoc. (2014)
…or other misconduct of an adverse party. In its reply memorandum, Tishman cites the "general interests of justice," as additional grounds for granting the subpoenas. Tishman's motion is primarily based on the contention that plaintiff…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 30, 2024 · in the opinion
Brooks v. Mission Stucco Company (2024)
…4th 413, 424 (Wysinger).) However, "\[w\]ith a special verdict, unlike a general verdict or a general verdict with special findings, a reviewing court will not infer findings to support the verdict." (Singh, at p. 358…
-
Court case · Missouri Court of Appeals · June 19, 2012 · in the opinion
Wagner v. Bondex International, Inc. (2012)
…fiber that began or caused the process that resulted in mesothelioma, but that asbestos fiber in general is the only known cause of the disease. Dr. Maddox also testified that mesothelioma results from an individual's…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · December 23, 2014 · in the opinion
Konstantin v. 640 Third Ave. Assoc. (2014)
… In its reply memorandum, Tishman cites the "general interests of justice," as additional grounds for granting the subpoenas. Tishman's motion is primarily based on the contention that plaintiff withheld discovery during the pendency of the…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 13, 2009 · in the opinion
Silvestro v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2009)
…to chrysotile." \[3\] Although Silvestro again worked in construction after his career as boiler repairman, the evidence showed that use of asbestos in construction materials (and in general) was being curtailed by the 1970's, and…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Central District of California · February 12, 2013 · in the opinion
Nelson v. Air and Liquid Systems Corp. (2013)
…2012) ("As a general rule, the existence of removal jurisdiction is determined at the time the removal petition is filed, irrespective of subsequent events. Federal courts have applied this general rule to federal officer removal jurisdiction…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · March 15, 2023 · in the opinion
Seen v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (2023)
…to a toxin, that the toxin is capable of causing the particular illness (general causation) and that plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the illness (specific causation)." Nemeth II, 38 N…