13 results for “General Electric”
-
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)…
-
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 …
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · May 7, 1986
Silver v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)
…§ 1-50(6), barred the claim because his last exposure was in 1961. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the statute applies to wrongful death actions in general. It held, however, that the statute did not apply…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · January 27, 1984 · in the opinion
Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)
…June 27, 1978 is broad in its scope and is to be liberally construed,\[3\] but is not without its limitations. In its general provision it states: Courts of record, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have…
-
Court case · Arizona Supreme Court · November 19, 1982 · in the opinion
Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona (1982)
…The new statute may cure problems such as the one presented by this case. Under the general provisions, the statute of limitations commences only when the workman knows or should know that "he has sustained a…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…