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

Search

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

  1. 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…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 17, 2009 · in the opinion

    Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2009)

    …retain an expert in every finished product manufacturer's line of business and second-guess the finished product manufacturer whenever any of its employees received any information about any potential problems.'" (Artiglio v. General Electric Co.

  4. Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 25, 2009 · in the opinion

    Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2009)

    …retain an expert in every finished product manufacturer's line of business and second-guess the finished product manufacturer whenever any of its employees received any information about any potential problems.'" (Artiglio v. General Electric Co.

  5. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 25, 2009 · in the opinion

    Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009)

    …specifications does not deprive them of the component parts defense. In Artiglio v. General Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 830 \[71 Cal.Rptr.2d 817\], the defendant manufactured silicone in accordance with "particular specifications…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 25, 2009 · in the opinion

    Campbell v. American Standard, Inc. (2009)

    …difficult if not impossible, is irrelevant to the determination whether the forum is suitable unless \the alternative forum provides no remedy at all.' \[Citations.\]" (Guimei v. General Electric Co. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 689, 696.)…

  7. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · August 8, 2011 · in the opinion

    Abbay v. Aurora Pump Company (2011)

    …successor-in-interest to PEERLESS PUMP COMPANY and CHICAGO PUMP COMPANY); FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to DELPHI HARRISON THERMAL SYSTEM and HARRISON RADIATOR); IMO INDUSTRIES, INC…

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · Alabama Supreme Court · December 16, 2011 · in the opinion

    Bradberry v. Carrier Corporation ET AL. (2011)

    \[8\] An exception to the general rule that the automatic stay does not apply to solvent codefendants has been recognized in certain "unusual circumstances" that are not present in this case. See A.H. Robbins Co…

  11. 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…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · October 1, 2010 · in the opinion

    Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2010)

    …125-8). Defendant asserts that this is a general, speculative statement and is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. While it is true that Plaintiffs' expert does not directly controvert Defendant's expert…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · October 8, 2010 · in the opinion

    Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2010)

    …125-8). Defendant asserts that this is a general, speculative statement and is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. While it is true that Plaintiffs' expert does not directly controvert Defendant's expert…

  14. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 3, 2010 · in the opinion

    Davis v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2010)

    …user defense, the ordinary users would have been Davis's employers, not Davis. As support, appellants cite Maneely v. General Motors Corp. (9th Cir. 1997) 108 F.3d 1176. In Maneely, applying California law, the court…

  15. 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…

  16. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · January 31, 2011 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. Aurora Pump Co. (2011)

    …NASH ENGINEERING COMPANY; GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. (sued individually and as successor-in- interest to GARLOCK, INC. and US GASKET CO.); GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS, INC.; HARDIE-TYNES, LLC. (sued…

  17. 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…

  18. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 24, 2008 · in the opinion

    Cunningham v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2008)

    …booster pumps, the bilge pumps, and fire and flushing pumps. Cunningham would have had technical manuals for such products available. In general, the manufacturers would provide their equipment to the shipyard, which would assemble, install, and…

  19. 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…

  20. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 1, 2009 · in the opinion

    Handley v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2009)

    …purpose of judicial construction of a statute is to determine the meaning that comports most closely with the intent of the Legislature "\with the view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute…