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

Search

15 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 · Rhode Island Superior Court · December 4, 2012 · in the opinion

    Melford v. Abex Corporation (2012)

    …as the doctrine; namely "wasted resources because of piecemeal litigation, the possibility of conflicting judgments, and a general concern that the courts may unduly interfere with each other's affairs." TPM Holdings, Inc. v. Intra-Gold…

  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 · New York Supreme Court · May 23, 2018

    Chen v. Volkswagen Group of America (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2018)

    …asked to dismiss the case because Texas was a more convenient forum. The court held that it lacked general jurisdiction over Volkswagen and Nissan. It found long-arm jurisdiction proper because Chen's testimony and the…

  10. Court case · New York Supreme Court · April 26, 2019

    Gayoso v. Nissan North America (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2019)

    …assert it with specificity in its answer, and general denials do not preserve it. Where the parties' experts rely on conflicting studies, issues of fact on general and specific causation preclude summary judgment. Causation; Expert Testimony…

  11. Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 20, 2019

    Temperino v. Amchem Prods. (2019)

    …cigarettes a day for about 37 years. Honda moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff could not prove general or specific causation. Several other defendants asked the court to bar plaintiff's medical experts and, if successful…

  12. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · August 1, 2022 · in the opinion

    Carroll v. Akebono Brake Corporation (2022)

    …and that it should be construed, not as a grant of power to make broad and general rules, but as a limitation upon the courts requiring that the customary rules having to do with the minutiæ…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 30, 2013 · in the opinion

    Steiner v. Volkswagen Group OF America, Inc. (2013)

    …fn. 22. As defendants point out, Ledesma referred to the scope of expert cross-examination in general, as set forth in section 721, subdivision (a), and did not address the limits of permissible cross-examination regarding…

  14. 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…

  15. 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…