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

Search

17 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · Michigan Court of Appeals · January 11, 2007 · in the opinion

    Chapin v. A & L Parts, Inc. (2007)

    …125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993),\[2\] and its progeny, Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 470 Mich. 749, 685 N.W.2d 391 (2004), General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512…

  2. Court case · Kentucky Court of Appeals · March 6, 2009 · in the opinion

    Cardinal Industrial Insulation Co., Inc. v. Norris (2009)

    \[1\] The Complaint named as Defendants: Cardinal Industrial Insulation Company, Inc.; Triangle Insulation and Sheetmetal Co.; General Electric Company; ACandS Inc.; Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC; Anchor Packing; John Crane, Inc.; Combustion Engineering, Inc.; RapidA-merican Corporation…

  3. Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 10, 2006

    Berger v. Amchem Prods. (2006)

    The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motions (joined by Ford and General Motors) to preclude evidence that brake and clutch dust causes asbestos disease, to dismiss the complaints, and for a Frye hearing, so the plaintiffs (Berger…

  4. Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · January 30, 2004

    Roca v. EI du Pont de Nemours and Co. (2004)

    The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's summary judgment for DuPont, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler and Rhone-Poulenc, holding that Roca waived his Section 343 claim by not raising it in his opening brief. An…

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · July 31, 2002

    In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (2002)

    Tens of thousands of people sued in state courts across the country, claiming that asbestos in friction products such as brake pads gave them or their relatives mesothelioma, lung, laryngeal or esophageal cancer, or asbestosis. They sued makers and…

  6. Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 13, 2003

    Polito v. Burns Int'l Services Corp. (Matter of Asbestos Litig., 2003)

    …repaired over a number of years. The remaining defendants were Burns International (formerly Borg-Warner), DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors, all involved in making or distributing brake products. Before trial, they moved to exclude certain evidence…

  7. Court case · Delaware Superior Court · May 9, 2006

    In re Asbestos Litigation (2006)

    The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motion in limine to exclude the plaintiffs' experts on general causation, so the plaintiffs' experts may testify that automotive friction products increase the risk of asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Under…

  8. Court case · New York Supreme Court · June 27, 2005

    DeMeyer v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (Matter of Asbestos Litig, 2005)

    …York applies the Frye general acceptance standard rather than Daubert; once the challenger makes a prima facie showing that an expert's methodology is not generally accepted, the proponent must prove general acceptance by a fair…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina · June 12, 2017 · in the opinion

    In re Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (2017)

    General Overview of the Debtors GST, a North Carolina limited liability company, and Garrison, a North Carolina corporation, were wholly owned subsidiaries of Coltec Industries Inc at the time GST and Garrison filed their Chapter 11…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · June 11, 2012 · in the opinion

    In re WR Grace & Co. (2012)

    Moreover, the General Growth Properties Court relied on several equitable considerations in arriving at its decision, including that the default rate would not constitute a "penalty" to the "exceedingly solvent" debtor, a lack of misconduct, and…

  11. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · June 16, 2011 · in the opinion

    In re Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (2011)

    …they function together. This finding is supported by evidence of record, including testimony cited by Mt. McKinley which established that Corning's General Counsel and Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Vincent P. Hatton, could not specify…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · March 1, 2013 · in the opinion

    Motions for Access OF Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (2013)

    …regardless of their motive for inspecting such records. Thus, the press has no greater right of access than does the general public, and more importantly, an intervenor who is also a litigant in a collateral proceeding…

  13. Court case · New York Court of Appeals · June 27, 2007 · in the opinion

    Reynolds v. Garlock Sealing Technologies (Mtr OF Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litigation, 2007)

    …441, 444 \[Utah 1989\]; Ratterree v Bartlett, 238 Kan 11, 29, 707 P2d 1063, 1076 \[1985\]; General Motors Corp. v Lahocki, 286 Md 714, 723-733, 410 A2d 1039, 1044-1048 \[1980\]; Ward v Ochoa, 284…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina · July 23, 2014 · in the opinion

    Legal Newsline v. Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (2014)

    …to "state the reasons for its decision to seal supported by specific findings, and the reasons for rejecting alternatives to sealing to provide this court with sufficient information for meaningful appellate review." Media General Operations, Inc…

  15. Court case · Georgia Supreme Court · November 20, 2006 · in the opinion

    DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Ferrante (2006)

    …2d 592 (1986). If, however, "\the objectionable part is so connected with the general scope of the statute that, should it be stricken out, effect cannot be given to the legislative intent, the rest of the…

  16. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 14, 2003 · in the opinion

    Cossman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2003)

    …28, 61 Cal.Rptr.2d 518.) Section 361 Requires Application of Indiana Law In general, whether a claim is barred by a statute of limitations "is a procedural matter governed by the law of the forum…

  17. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware · March 1, 2013 · in the opinion

    In re Motions for Access OF Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (2013)

    …regardless of their motive for inspecting such records. Thus, the press has no greater right of access than does the general public, and more importantly, an intervenor who is also a litigant in a collateral proceeding…