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

Search

6 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · March 23, 1993

    Miller v. American President Lines, Ltd. (1993)

    …suppliers under comparative fault, and otherwise affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff estate. Punitive damages are not available in a general maritime law unseaworthiness action for the wrongful death of a seaman. Indemnity and contribution among…

  2. 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…

  3. 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…

  4. Court case · U.S. Supreme Court · June 25, 1997 · in the opinion

    Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor (1997)

    "But the settlement does more than simply provide a general recovery fund," the Court of Appeals immediately added; "\[r\]ather, it makes important judgments on how recovery is to be allocated among different kinds of plaintiffs…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…