6 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · September 16, 2016
George v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016)
…County state court. Even assuming consent-by-registration survives Daimler, Pennsylvania's registration statute limits general jurisdiction to acts occurring during the period of registration, so a registration that began after the alleged injury does not…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia · April 20, 2009 · in the opinion
Hamrick v. A & I Company (2009)
…a Durametallic Corp. and GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC f/k/a Garlock, Inc. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and GOODRICH CORPORATION and as successor-in-interest to Goodrich-Gulf Chemical, Inc. f/k/a…
-
Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · October 13, 2016 · in the opinion
Murray v. Dana Companies (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2016)
…Thomen, Esq., (860) 275-6700, [email protected]., for General Electric Company. Matthew C. Oleyer, Esq., (617) 217-5500, [email protected]., for General Insulation Company. Jason Caron, Esq., (781) 556-0600, [email protected]., for…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · June 27, 1996 · in the opinion
Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc. (1996)
…requirements of predominance and superiority. In In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir.) \[Hereinafter GM Trucks\], cert. denied sub nom. General Motors Corp. v…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · January 6, 2023 · in the opinion
Roadarmel v. Curtiss-Wright Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2023)
…at 322. The Defendant does not identify which counts of the complaint should arguably be dismissed and refers only to general descriptions of them as "ancillary" or "incidental." (D.I. 26 at 14) In arguing for…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · December 16, 2008 · in the opinion
Bednar v. Dana Corp. (2008)
…provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The amendment provides a general rule that each party shall be entitled to four peremptory challenges, but gives the Court two alternatives to achieve "a fair distribution of challenges". First…