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

Search

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

  1. Court case · Mississippi Supreme Court · December 12, 1990 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Edwards (1990)

    … 15-1-35, citing the general rule that the statute began to run from the date of publication of the allegedly libelous statement to a third person. Staheli argued that the statute did not begin to…

  2. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · July 24, 1979 · in the opinion

    Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos & Magnesia Materials Co. (1979)

    …defective product. See Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 69 S.Ct. 1018, 11 A.L.R.2d 252; Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. Barker, 228 F.2d 842; Brush Beryllium Co. v. Meckley, 284…

  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, Fourth Circuit · January 30, 1986 · in the opinion

    Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (1986)

    …a given industry. They are often set forth in some type of code, such as a building code or electrical code, or they may be adopted by the trade organization of a given industry. State of…

  5. Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · March 25, 2003

    Jurich v. Garlock, Inc. (2003)

    …applied. One statute covers asbestos claims against those who mined and sold asbestos. The other is the general ten-year statute of repose for product claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · February 28, 1986 · in the opinion

    Joyce v. AC and S., Inc. (1986)

    No ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed outside of the employment shall be compensable, except: (1) When it follows as an incident of occupational disease as defined in this title; or…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · October 21, 1980

    Ins. Co. North America v. Forty-Eight Insulations (1980)

    …Affiliated FM, Illinois National and Liberty Mutual lost, and Forty-Eight and Travelers largely won. Under standard comprehensive general liability policies, 'bodily injury' from asbestosis occurs when tissue damage begins on inhalation of fibers, not at…

  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. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 26, 1982 · in the opinion

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

    …Borel, we conclude that Borel, while conclusive as to the general matter of a duty to warn on the part of manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation products, is ultimately ambiguous as to certain key issues. As…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · January 14, 1980 · in the opinion

    Mooney v. Fibreboard Corp. (1980)

    …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…

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · August 13, 1982 · in the opinion

    Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1982)

    …to his health. We thus regard Wisconsin Natural Gas to be an exceptional application of the more general rule that the cause of action accrues when the asbestos-caused disease becomes diagnosable — e.g., provable by…

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · April 26, 1999 · in the opinion

    Holmes v. ACandS, Inc. (1999)

    …year discovery based statute of limitations applicable to product liability claims. The comprehensiveness of the medical malpractice act is evidence of the legislature's intent that it should prevail over the more general wrongful death statute…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · June 23, 1999 · in the opinion

    Lambert v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1999)

    …we must address two issues. First, we must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether the incident had "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce." Id. (quoting Sisson v. Ruby…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · May 4, 1978 · in the opinion

    Ins. Co. of No. Am. v. Forty-Eight Insulations (1978)

    …lawsuits. D. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Cases dealing with statute of limitation issues are not applicable to this coverage problem. See, Tijsseling v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., 55 Cal.App.3d 623, 127 Cal…

  17. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 20, 1992 · in the opinion

    Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1992)

    …TAMILIA, KELLY and JOHNSON, JJ. [\442] WIEAND, Judge: The general issue in this asbestos exposure action is whether Pennsylvania, in the context of asbestos actions, shall be a one-disease or two-disease state. More specifically…

  18. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · May 1, 1981 · in the opinion

    Fusco v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1981)

    …1975) is not in point. In Kellum, the court determined that the United States in general was not subject to state statutes of limitations; however, nothing in the opinion indicates that a state statute of limitations…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · October 28, 1981 · in the opinion

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

    …The defendants' first argument is that plaintiff's "survival" claim is time-barred under the law of the District of Columbia, which provides that the general period of limitations is three years. See D.C.Code …

  20. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 30, 1999 · in the opinion

    Porter Hayden Company v. Wyche (1999)

    …to the earliest diagnosis, from adenocarcinoma is 13.2 years." Although Porter Hayden seems to take issue in its reply brief with the use of general epidemiological testimony to draw inferences in specific cases, in Grimshaw…