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

Search

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

  1. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · April 2, 2004

    Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (2004)

    …not know of mesothelioma specifically. It reinstated liability for CertainTeed, Fibreboard and Flintkote, found no error as to Foster Wheeler and General Electric, and removed Gasket Holding. It upheld the damage awards. Exxon owed a virile…

  2. 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…

  3. 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…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit · September 26, 1990 · in the opinion

    Hoffman v. Allied Corp. (1990)

    …however, that no asbestos products were used within the ordnance repair shop itself. [\1381] Leo Rapacilo was an electrician who worked in close proximity to asbestos products on the ships in dry dock at the shipyard…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · July 2, 1990

    White v. Celotex Corp. (1990)

    …The Ninth Circuit affirmed. It held that the defendants' general sale of asbestos insulation during those years was not evidence that they supplied the asbestos Edward encountered. It also found market share liability unsuited to asbestos…

  8. 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…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · June 18, 1990 · in the opinion

    Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1990)

    …under the circumstances of this action, Texas courts would carve out an exception to the general rule and allow punitive damages without proof of actual damages. The peculiar facts of this case create the rare circumstance…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · January 21, 1994 · in the opinion

    Tabolt v. Flintkote Co. (In re New York Asbestos Litigation, 1994)

    …at 982 F.2d 721 (2d Cir.1992), and the publication of numerous stories in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal — any well-informed citizen could possess general knowledge about Johns Manville, c.f.…

  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 · Delaware Superior Court · August 23, 1983 · in the opinion

    Nutt v. AC & S., Inc. (1983)

    …claims of mental anguish asserted by the plaintiff-wives are alleged in the amended complaints in broad and general language but are actually of two distinct types: mental anguish resulting from the witnessing of the physical…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · June 30, 1992 · in the opinion

    Feldman v. Owens-Illinois (In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litigation, 1992)

    …statute: "There is no justification for rewarding recalcitrant non-settling defendants by permitting them to apply the General Obligations Law offset in a manner that reduces or even obliterates their own liability in cases where plaintiffs…

  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. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · March 13, 1981 · in the opinion

    Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)

    …to be persuaded that the choice of law made in Flatt is correct. That is, under any standard, federal law applies. Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 [\1361] (5th Cir. 1975); Willis v…

  16. 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…

  17. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · June 3, 1985 · in the opinion

    Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)

    …Court has expressly held, in Turner v. General Motors Corporation,\[36\] that, although evidence of the expectations of the ordinary consumer and the care of a prudent manufacturer may be introduced at trial, "henceforth in the…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa · November 22, 1994 · in the opinion

    Perrin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1994)

    …that the defendants' products were located at shipyards where the Parks was overhauled, and were used by shipyard workers on ships in general, does not support a reasonable inference that the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos…

  19. 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…

  20. 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…