- Organization: Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc.
- Organization: Asbestos Corporation, Ltd.
- Clear filters
19 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · September 30, 2015
Hedden v. CBS Corporation (2015)
The court granted summary judgment to Crown Cork & Seal, CBS, General Electric, Gardner Denver, Link-Belt and Riley Power, and denied it to Crane Co. and John Crane, Inc. on the maritime claims, so the Heddens…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota · December 1, 2022
Pyle v. AH Bennett Co. (2022)
Brian Pyle and Glenn Frericks filed separate federal lawsuits in North Dakota against many companies, alleging state-law claims arising from their occupational exposure to asbestos. The opinion does not name their diseases or describe where they…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · August 31, 1982 · in the opinion
Neal v. Carey Canadian Mines, Ltd. (1982)
…cite the cases of Toppi v. United States, 332 F.Supp. 513 (E.D.Pa.1971) and Lockett v. General Electric Co., 376 F.Supp. 1201 (E.D.Pa.1974), aff'd, 511 F.2d 1394 …
-
Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · April 5, 2010 · in the opinion
Buttitta v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2010)
…CO., C.L. ZIMMERMAN of DELAWARE, a successor corporation to C.L. ZIMMERMAN COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS CORP., HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a successor corporation to ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC., and as a successor in interest to HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · February 11, 2009 · in the opinion
Burger v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2009)
…he performed automotive repairs and, from the early 1950's to the early 1980's, he used brakes from Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Pep Boys, and NAPA stores. Deposition of Jon Burger, dated 3/29/06…
-
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 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana · April 22, 2014 · in the opinion
Genusa v. Asbestos Corporation Limited (2014)
…claims against various defendants arising out of alleged asbestos exposure at Avondale Shipyards. Some of the defendants brought a third-party contribution action against Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the manufacturer of marine turbines for the U.S…
-
Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · July 28, 2011
Buttitta v. Allied-Signal, Inc. (2011)
…accept it can be held liable for the fee, cost and interest awards the rule provides. The award did not violate due process. Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: General Motors Corporation warehouse General Motors Corporation warehouse
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · June 28, 2021
Klick v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (2021)
The court granted Boeing's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding no general or specific jurisdiction over Boeing in New Jersey, denied jurisdictional discovery, and declined to transfer the claims, so Boeing won…
-
Court case · California Supreme Court · May 15, 2000
Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000)
…Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that Mitchell's second action (for mesothelioma) was not time-barred and that Asbestos Corporation made a general appearance in the first action, so the plaintiffs prevailed on both…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · May 4, 2006 · in the opinion
Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2006)
Therefore, unlike the Texas Legislature, the New Jersey Legislature has the general power to enact retroactive civil statutes that do not impair contractual obligations or remedies. See Nobrega, 772 A.2d at 378-82; Phillips, 608…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina · March 4, 1986 · in the opinion
Gardner v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1986)
…North Carolina applies to this action as to the other pending cases. All or most of the cases raise the question of the applicability of North Carolina General Statutes (N.C.G.S.) § 1-50(6)…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 15, 2017 · in the opinion
Saller v. Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. (2017)
…s defense depended on evidence of Johns-Manville's sophistication. "Although the record clearly show\[ed\] Johns-Manville was aware of the risks of asbestos in general, no evidence established it knew about the particularly acute…
-
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…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · February 11, 2009 · in the opinion
Vanaman v. Dap, Inc. (2009)
…limits the asbestos-related liability of Pennsylvania corporations when that liability arises from a merger or consolidation. In general, the Statute caps the successor corporation's asbestos-related liability at the fair market value of the…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · July 15, 2021 · in the opinion
Klick v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (2021)
…Instead, Defendant reiterates its arguments regarding general jurisdiction and misconstrues Plaintiffs' arguments regarding Abex's New Jersey facility, stating that "Plaintiffs' position that Abex's research and development department in New Jersey constitutes its principal place…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · September 9, 2013 · in the opinion
Lefevre v. CBS Corporation (2013)
…To avoid this result, courts have developed four exceptions to the general rule that liabilities are not transferred: (1) the purchaser expressly or impliedly agrees to assume liability; (2) the purchase is a de facto merger…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 2, 2009 · in the opinion
Wangen v. Gardner Denver, Inc. (2009)
…d\] that Soco West, Inc. is not subject to jurisdiction in the State of Washington." Plant Insulation Company presented a declaration from its general counsel. Based upon his personal knowledge, he averred that the company was…