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

Search

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

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · June 30, 2014

    Barnes v. Foster Wheeler Corp. (2014)

    The district court granted General Electric's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GE with prejudice, because plaintiffs offered no admissible evidence that Barnes was exposed to an asbestos product made or supplied…

  2. Court case · New York Supreme Court · January 25, 2010

    Miranda v. Abex Corp. (2010)

    Four plaintiffs, Ernesto Miranda, Antonio DiBenedetto, Lutz Sommer and Gordon Cheney, sued Abex Corporation and other companies in New York County. They alleged they had mesothelioma from asbestos exposure, and two of the four had died. Miranda and…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · September 30, 2015

    Hedden v. CBS Corporation (2015)

    The court granted summary judgment to Crown Cork & Seal, CBS, General Electric, Gardner Denver, Link-Belt and Riley Power, and denied it to Crane Co. and John Crane, Inc. on the maritime claims, so the Heddens…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming · April 7, 2014 · in the opinion

    Johnson v. Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust (2014)

    "Under general conflict of laws principles, where the laws of the two jurisdictions would produce the same result on the particular issue presented, there is a \false conflict,' and the \[c\]ourt should avoid the choice…

  5. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · June 27, 2017

    McCarthy v. Warren Pumps (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)

    The Superior Court denied the motions for summary judgment of Warren Pumps, Gardner Denver and General Electric, ruling that the decedent's pre-suit sworn statement was admissible and that plaintiff showed enough product identification to…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · April 26, 2021

    Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021)

    Carl Gay developed mesothelioma, diagnosed in June 2019, and died in April 2020. His daughter, Allisa Gay, as executor of his estate, sued Gardner Denver and other manufacturers and distributors. She alleged he was exposed to asbestos in Gardner…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Wyoming · April 7, 2014

    Johnson v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. Prod. Liab. Trust (2014)

    The district court granted summary judgment to Gardner Denver, Bechtel, FMC, CBS (Westinghouse's successor) and General Electric, ruling against the estate of H. Paul Johnson, because no evidence tied any of their asbestos to him…

  8. Court case · Mississippi Supreme Court · October 14, 2010

    Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Pittman (2010)

    Lonnie Pittman was named as a plaintiff in a December 2002 asbestos suit against many companies. Defendants later learned he had died in March 2001, almost two years before the suit was filed. His widow, Mary Pittman, was substituted as plaintiff…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · November 9, 2021

    Data v. AO Smith Corporation (2021)

    Darlene Data sued many companies in her own right and as executrix of her husband Michael Data's estate. Mr. Data served in the Navy aboard the USS Newport News from 1969 to 1973. He later worked at Mesta Machine and then at the West Pittsburgh…

  10. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 17, 2009 · in the opinion

    Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2009)

    …retain an expert in every finished product manufacturer's line of business and second-guess the finished product manufacturer whenever any of its employees received any information about any potential problems.'" (Artiglio v. General Electric Co.

  11. Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 25, 2009 · in the opinion

    Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2009)

    …retain an expert in every finished product manufacturer's line of business and second-guess the finished product manufacturer whenever any of its employees received any information about any potential problems.'" (Artiglio v. General Electric Co.

  12. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 25, 2009 · in the opinion

    Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009)

    …specifications does not deprive them of the component parts defense. In Artiglio v. General Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 830 \[71 Cal.Rptr.2d 817\], the defendant manufactured silicone in accordance with "particular specifications…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 25, 2009 · in the opinion

    Campbell v. American Standard, Inc. (2009)

    …difficult if not impossible, is irrelevant to the determination whether the forum is suitable unless \the alternative forum provides no remedy at all.' \[Citations.\]" (Guimei v. General Electric Co. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 689, 696.)…

  14. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · August 8, 2011 · in the opinion

    Abbay v. Aurora Pump Company (2011)

    …successor-in-interest to PEERLESS PUMP COMPANY and CHICAGO PUMP COMPANY); FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to DELPHI HARRISON THERMAL SYSTEM and HARRISON RADIATOR); IMO INDUSTRIES, INC…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · June 24, 2024 · in the opinion

    Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2024)

    …causation standard, and then arguing that the second "substantial factor" prong is not met). Only in its reply does Eaton raise doubts about Plaintiff's actual bystander exposure to its asbestos-containing electrical products. Dkt. No…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · February 13, 2019

    Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019)

    …law, a plaintiff must show exposure to each defendant's product and that the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury. A general recollection of a manufacturer's name, with no detail on where…

  17. Court case · Alabama Supreme Court · December 16, 2011 · in the opinion

    Bradberry v. Carrier Corporation ET AL. (2011)

    \[8\] An exception to the general rule that the automatic stay does not apply to solvent codefendants has been recognized in certain "unusual circumstances" that are not present in this case. See A.H. Robbins Co…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · October 1, 2010 · in the opinion

    Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2010)

    …125-8). Defendant asserts that this is a general, speculative statement and is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. While it is true that Plaintiffs' expert does not directly controvert Defendant's expert…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · October 8, 2010 · in the opinion

    Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2010)

    …125-8). Defendant asserts that this is a general, speculative statement and is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. While it is true that Plaintiffs' expert does not directly controvert Defendant's expert…

  20. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 3, 2010 · in the opinion

    Davis v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2010)

    …user defense, the ordinary users would have been Davis's employers, not Davis. As support, appellants cite Maneely v. General Motors Corp. (9th Cir. 1997) 108 F.3d 1176. In Maneely, applying California law, the court…