29 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2
-
Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · October 25, 1989 · in the opinion
Board of Education v. A, C & S, Inc. (1989)
…the defendant (Sawyer, 89 Ill.2d at 384 (real estate brokers must follow the regulations created by the Department of Registration and Education); Heimgaertner v. Benjamin Electric Manufacturing Co. (1955), 6 Ill.2d 152, 153-54 …
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · January 23, 2002 · in the opinion
Hoerner v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2002)
…indicates that Employers Commercial Union Insurance Co. issued a primary commercial general liability policy to Eagle during each of the one-year periods when Home Insurance issued the excess policy. The personal injury limit for the…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · May 24, 1983 · in the opinion
Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard Corp. (1983)
…forum. Defendants have not shown that any hardship complained of is the result of proceeding to trial now. Nor is there a showing that the difficulties inherent in the general situation, including potential judicial inefficiency, constitute…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii · December 9, 1986 · in the opinion
In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases (1986)
…Moreover the Hawaii Court of Appeals has held that the introduction of concepts of "unreasonableness" and "foreseeability" into products liability confuses the jury and equates strict liability with negligence. Boudreau v. General Elec. Co., 2 Haw…
-
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…
-
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 …