16 results for “General Electric”
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 4, 2019 · in the opinion
Linsowe v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2019)
General Motors (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1183.) We begin our independent review of the special verdict with the award of $532,685.37 in economic and noneconomic damages to Sharron Linsowe. The damages award…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 13, 2012 · in the opinion
Shields v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012)
…53 Cal.4th 335, also supports this argument. B. Tellez-Cordova In Tellez-Cordova, the court conducted an analysis of a ruling sustaining a general demurrer involving a similar issue. (Tellez-Cordova, supra, 129 Cal.App…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 18, 2015 · in the opinion
Greenberg v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2015)
…8 Cal.3d at p. 126; accord, Horn v. General Motors Corp., supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 366.) O'Neil In O'Neil, our Supreme Court examined the extent to which a manufacturer may be…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 18, 2015 · in the opinion
Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2015)
…did so. Thus, the complaint's general allegations cannot reasonably be regarded as a binding admission that the linings released [\1152] asbestos fibers regardless of whether they were being abraded by the machine. Accordingly, Hennessy has…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2012 · in the opinion
Barker v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012)
…A Manufacturer Owes No General Duty to Warn of Defects in Another Manufacturer's Product. A manufacturer's duty to warn does not extend to hazards arising solely from other products. The decedent in O'Neil…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 2012 · in the opinion
Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012)
…plaintiffs' injuries. I. Standard of Review A motion for judgment on the pleadings is analogous to a general demurrer. (Ludgate, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 602.) Like a general demurrer, it tests the sufficiency…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 9, 2016 · in the opinion
Rondon v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2016)
…not seen any reliable information to the effect that non-asbestos brake linings for drum brakes were commercially available for general or ordinary use prior to 1980 on automobiles or trucks." As part of his opinion…
-
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…
-
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…