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

Search

57 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 3

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa · July 16, 1998

    Harder v. ACandS, Inc. (1998)

    The federal district court denied General Electric's motion for summary judgment, holding that Iowa's fifteen-year statute of repose did not bar the Harders' claims against GE over asbestos insulation blankets. Under Iowa Code…

  2. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 3, 1997 · in the opinion

    Anchor Packing Co. v. Grimshaw (1997)

    …3\] (Emphasis added). In addition, the legislative history of C.J. § 11-108 indicates that the General Assembly intended that the cap apply broadly, as opposed to only malpractice claims. In January 1986, Senate Bill No…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit · January 31, 1990

    Kraciun v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1990)

    …Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1953 onward (except Navy 1954-1958); service crew, general maintenance worker and electrical maintenance worker E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1948-1985; maintenance person…

  4. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · March 6, 1981 · in the opinion

    Locke v. Johns-Manville (1981)

    …the defendants in the November 1978 order appealed from. The record shows that since approximately 1948 plaintiff had been employed as an industrial electrician by various contractors at sites in Virginia, New York and North Carolina…

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · March 20, 1990 · in the opinion

    Johnson v. Celotex Corp. (1990)

    …that there was exposure, but was compelled to come to that result. Plaintiff worked at the Navy Yard from 1942 to 1945 as an electrician's helper on board ships including the Missouri, the Iowa and…

  6. Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · October 25, 1983 · in the opinion

    Froud v. Celotex Corp. (1983)

    …2d 199, 214-15, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 1595-96 (Black, J., dissenting); General Dynamics Corp., Electric Boat Division, v. Benefits Review Board (2d Cir.1977), 565 F.2d 208, 212; Williams v. Ray (1978), 146…

  7. Court case · North Carolina Supreme Court · November 5, 1985 · in the opinion

    Wilder v. Amatex Corp. (1985)

    …E.2d 281 (1972); Galligan v. Chapel Hill, 276 N.C. 172, 171 S.E.2d 427 (1970); Domestic Electric Service Co., Inc. v. Rocky Mount, 20 N.C.App. 347, 201 S.E.2d 508…

  8. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 30, 1996 · in the opinion

    Armstrong World Industries v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. (1996)

    …were not dangerous. There was concern about the dustiness of Armaspray — but not so much for health reasons as for reasons of cleanup and potential damage to electrical equipment. The specifications for Armaspray called for good…

  9. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · September 4, 1991 · in the opinion

    O'brien v. National Gypsum Co. (1991)

    …any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However…

  10. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · April 19, 1982 · in the opinion

    Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1982)

    …Rather, defendants state, the cost "will be borne by the public at large and reflected in a general, across the board increase in premiums to compensate for unanticipated risks." There is some truth in this assertion…

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · November 29, 1993

    Angelo v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1993)

    …It upheld exclusion of a treating doctor's deposition because the Angelos had not shown diligent efforts to secure his attendance. It found the reverse bifurcation proper, and the jury instructions and general verdict form adequate.

  14. 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…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee · January 9, 1984 · in the opinion

    Johnson County, Tenn. v. US Gypsum Co. (1984)

    While it is true that contractors who perform construction work for the state operated universities are not protected by general statutes of limitation, see Dunn v. W.F. Jameson and Sons, Inc., 569 S.W.2d…

  16. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · November 28, 1988 · in the opinion

    Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1988)

    …113 (3d Cir.1985) (evidence of general use of Pittsburgh Corning's Unibestos at job site was sufficient to allow jury to find Pittsburgh Corning to be a factor in causing the plaintiff's injury). \[13…

  17. Court case · Missouri Supreme Court · September 10, 1991

    Hagen v. Celotex Corp. (1991)

    …A plaintiff must show through expert testimony that each defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Evidence showing only asbestos exposure in general, or that a defendant's product may have contributed…

  18. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · April 14, 1995 · in the opinion

    Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1995)

    …the petit jury venire. The Supreme Court announced a general rule that "\[t\]he denial or impairment of the right \[to exercise peremptory challenges\] is reversible error without a showing of prejudice." Swain, 380 U.S…

  19. Court case · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · July 7, 1993 · in the opinion

    Behrendt v. GAF Corp. (1993)

    …fishing, woodworking. Mr. Behrendt's pain symptoms eventually led to a diagnosis of mesothelioma in December 1990. He was taken to the Emergency Room at Community General Osteopathic Hospital, Harrisburg, on December 23, 1990 with a…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · May 31, 1985 · in the opinion

    Krull v. Celotex Corp. (1985)

    …Supp. 818, 821-22 (N.D.Cal.1983). But the general rule in such cases remains that, subject to certain exceptions, the asset-acquiring company is not liable for the debts and liabilities of the seller…