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

Search

27 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · March 30, 1983 · in the opinion

    Austin v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (1983)

    …appears that the tests are the same, since, in general "\[o\]nce admiralty jurisdiction is established, then all of the substantive rules and precepts peculiar to the law of the sea become applicable." Brance v. Shumann…

  2. Court case · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · August 24, 1989 · in the opinion

    District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation (1989)

    …hospitals, and government offices, are for the general use of the public, and hundreds or even thousands of people pass through each of them every day. Any child who grows up in the District and attends…

  3. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · March 15, 1989 · in the opinion

    In re Johns-Manville Corp. (1989)

    …Thus, pursuant to ¶ 10.1(B) of the Plan and the general power of this Court, the Court retains jurisdiction to determine the instant dispute. The Plan also provides in ¶ 10.1(G) that the Court…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · September 22, 1987

    In re Asbestos Litigation (1987)

    Asbestos manufacturers defending personal injury suits in the federal district court in New Jersey challenged a New Jersey Supreme Court rule. Under Beshada and later cases, asbestos defendants could not use the "state-of-the-art" defense, which…

  5. Court case · Washington Supreme Court · October 31, 1989

    Falk v. Keene Corp. (1989)

    …by risk-utility balancing and consumer expectations, not ordinary common law negligence; instructions letting the jury apply general negligence instructions to it are reversible error. Design Defect; Trial Procedure and Discovery Navy service 1947 to 1953

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · May 7, 1986

    Silver v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …§ 1-50(6), barred the claim because his last exposure was in 1961. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the statute applies to wrongful death actions in general. It held, however, that the statute did not apply…

  7. Company document · WARD Documents · 1972

    Eagle-Picher Private-Label Insulating Cements and a Cross-Reference of J-M Firecrete Castables to Competing Brands (c. 1972)

    …Union Asbestos & Rubber, GAF and General Refractories. A note says "One-Cote cement did not contain asbestos prior to 1960." The second is a cross-reference chart matching Johns-Manville's Firecrete and Firelite castable refractories…

  8. Court case · Minnesota Supreme Court · May 14, 1982 · in the opinion

    DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (1982)

    …the court concluded that because the tolling provisions of the general limitations statute were in existence prior to the enactment of the wrongful death statute the legislature "could not possibly have had in mind that the…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota · January 11, 1982 · in the opinion

    Bertrand v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …discretion to determine when it should be applied. The general rule should be that in cases where a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action or where, either for the reasons discussed above or…

  10. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · August 22, 1991 · in the opinion

    Lilley v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1991)

    …asbestosis sufferers in general and specifically by a person with Mr. Lilley's type of symptoms. Id. at 41-46. Dr. Altschuler offered no testimony regarding Mr. Lilley's psychological profile nor the general psychological characteristics…

  11. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · April 27, 1990 · in the opinion

    Jenkins v. Johns-Manville Products (1990)

    …BROCHIN. Lawrence G. Moncher, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent-appellant Commissioner Of Labor, and respondent-cross-appellant in A-5659-86T7 (Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Lawrence G…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Kansas · August 19, 1986 · in the opinion

    Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1986)

    …the cause in fact of his injuries does not undermine the principle that a defendant should only be held responsible for the damage it caused. As long as a plaintiff can prove general causation, i.e.…

  13. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 7, 1992 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong (1992)

    …283 Md. 296, 327, 389 A.2d 887, 905 (1978). Causation is a necessary element of any strict liability action. Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337, 344, 363 A.2d 955, 958 (1976). In…

  14. Court case · Ohio Supreme Court · October 14, 1987 · in the opinion

    Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1987)

    …it is important to understand that both alternative liability and market-share liability are exceptions to the general rule that a plaintiff has to prove an injury was caused by the negligence of a particular defendant…

  15. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 23, 1984 · in the opinion

    Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984)

    …a "less desirable longshoreman" in the future. Id. at 668. Bonura is inapposite to the case at bar. Bonura was decided under general maritime law, not Louisiana law. Furthermore, the instant record does not support an…

  16. Court case · Washington Supreme Court · April 27, 1989 · in the opinion

    Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp. (1989)

    …of Trial Lawyers of America; Richard H. Robblee on behalf of United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices, amici curiae for appellants. [\638] Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General, Michael E. Tardif, Senior Assistant, and Michael Madden, Assistant…

  17. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · July 27, 1988 · in the opinion

    Blazek v. Nicolet, Inc. (1988)

    …We disagree. • 1 The general intent of statutes of repose is to "terminate the possibility of liability after a defined period of time, regardless of a potential plaintiff's lack of knowledge of his cause of…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · March 1, 1983 · in the opinion

    Carter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983)

    …been even reasonably knowable. The supplier would thus be free of culpability, but a price of his doing business is to protect people from danger from his products — or to pay. General Motors Corp. v. Hopkins…

  19. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · January 27, 1984 · in the opinion

    Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)

    …June 27, 1978 is broad in its scope and is to be liberally construed,\[3\] but is not without its limitations. In its general provision it states: Courts of record, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have…

  20. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit · July 30, 1982 · in the opinion

    Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …first action may expressly reserve plaintiff's right to maintain second action). \[35\] Johns-Manville has catalogued an impressive array of court decisions exemplifying the general res judicata rule against splitting an indivisible cause of action…