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

Search

16 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · July 8, 1988 · in the opinion

    Knox v. AC & S, Inc. (1988)

    …any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or otherwise come to be located." State v. General Electric Co., 592 F.Supp. 291, 295 (N.D. NY 1984) (citation omitted)…

  2. Court case · New York Supreme Court · August 29, 2014 · in the opinion

    Brown v. Bell & Gossett Co. (2014)

    …contractors were "essentially restrained from taking independent action without first obtaining Con Edison's approval"; 2) 1958 Articles of General Conditions, arguing that its specifications and drawings were binding on the contractors and rendered Con Edison …

  3. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · March 28, 2001 · in the opinion

    Abadie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (2001)

    …and Johnny Johnson. CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Westinghouse), settled and dismissed their appeals with all plaintiffs but Earlven Gauthe and Johnny Johnson after oral argument, but days before…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · October 21, 1980

    Ins. Co. North America v. Forty-Eight Insulations (1980)

    …Affiliated FM, Illinois National and Liberty Mutual lost, and Forty-Eight and Travelers largely won. Under standard comprehensive general liability policies, 'bodily injury' from asbestosis occurs when tissue damage begins on inhalation of fibers, not at…

  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. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · March 13, 1981 · in the opinion

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

    …to be persuaded that the choice of law made in Flatt is correct. That is, under any standard, federal law applies. Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 [\1361] (5th Cir. 1975); Willis v…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · May 4, 1978 · in the opinion

    Ins. Co. of No. Am. v. Forty-Eight Insulations (1978)

    …lawsuits. D. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Cases dealing with statute of limitation issues are not applicable to this coverage problem. See, Tijsseling v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., 55 Cal.App.3d 623, 127 Cal…

  10. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · July 27, 1988 · in the opinion

    Blazek v. Nicolet, Inc. (1988)

    …We disagree. • 1 The general intent of statutes of repose is to "terminate the possibility of liability after a defined period of time, regardless of a potential plaintiff's lack of knowledge of his cause of…

  11. 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 …

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · September 11, 1986 · in the opinion

    Vigiolto v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …Applicable Law. We begin with the proposition that in a tort action, as a general rule, proof that a [\1457] specific defendant caused the plaintiff's harm is a prerequisite to that defendant's liability to…

  14. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · December 15, 1988 · in the opinion

    Whatley v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1988)

    …474 (5th Cir.1985); see Shipp v. General Motors Corp., 750 F.2d 418, 425 (5th Cir.1985) (Duncan placed the allocative burden of comparative causation on the defendant). Sufficiency of the Evidence Whatley contends that…

  15. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · November 9, 2001 · in the opinion

    Emery v. Owens-Corporation (2001)

    …suitable references to plaintiff's closing argument), we issue a precautionary warning that the general reference to "witnesses" in its admissibility assertion skirts the outer perimeter of Rule 2-12.4. \[9\] See La. Acts 1979…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · May 30, 1980 · in the opinion

    Migues v. Nicolet Industries, Inc. (1980)

    …in recognition of certain policy concerns, pro rata apportionment between joint tortfeasors. The Court has noted with some emphasis the later decision of the Texas Supreme Court in General Motors Corporation v. Simmons, 558 S.W…