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

Search

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

  1. 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…

  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 · 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…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · June 18, 1990 · in the opinion

    Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1990)

    …under the circumstances of this action, Texas courts would carve out an exception to the general rule and allow punitive damages without proof of actual damages. The peculiar facts of this case create the rare circumstance…

  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 · 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…

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · November 17, 1988 · in the opinion

    Adkins v. GAF Corp. (1988)

    …sold by ACL is processed raw asbestos fiber. Asbestos exposure causes asbestosis. This fact was general knowledge in the asbestos industry in the State of Ohio at least after 1945. Not every exposure to asbestos, however…

  15. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 20, 1992 · in the opinion

    Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1992)

    …TAMILIA, KELLY and JOHNSON, JJ. [\442] WIEAND, Judge: The general issue in this asbestos exposure action is whether Pennsylvania, in the context of asbestos actions, shall be a one-disease or two-disease state. More specifically…

  16. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · August 12, 1996 · in the opinion

    Nelson v. Keene Corp. (1996)

    …pleadings shall be according to the rules." 735 ILCS 5/2-201(a) (West 1994). General jurisdiction is invoked in the trial court when an action is filed and a summons is issued and served upon…

  17. 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 …

  18. 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…

  19. 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…

  20. Court case · Ohio Supreme Court · April 13, 1983 · in the opinion

    O'stricker v. Jim Walter Corp. (1983)

    …An action for bodily injury or injuring personal property shall be brought within two years after the cause thereof arose." In 1980, the General Assembly amended that statute by adding the following proviso, effective June 12…