10 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · Maryland Appellate Court · February 8, 2024
Basil-Flippen v. General Electric Company (2024)
…Campbell Company installing asbestos insulation on a turbine at the Morgantown Generating Station in Maryland. The turbine was sold to the Potomac Electric Power Company by Westinghouse, which also had a separate contract to install it…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · September 9, 2021
Murphy v. Union Carbide Corporation (2021)
…vessel, do not suffice. Government Contractor Defense and Removal; Venue, Removal and Transfer Worksites: Bethlehem Steel Key Highway Shipyard; Key Highway Shipyard, Baltimore Shipyard worker — helper, electrical equipment; apprentice electrician Key Highway Shipyard Baltimore 1973-1974
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · May 5, 2016
Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016)
Charles Arbogast, Jr., and his wife Barbara sued twenty-seven companies, alleging that as manufacturers or distributors of various products they exposed him to asbestos and caused his mesothelioma. The complaint raised strict liability, negligence,…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · July 18, 2016
Oliver v. Campbell McCORMICK, Inc. (2016)
…1972 to 1978. Campbell-McCormick brought in third-party defendants for contribution, and General Electric removed the case to federal court, relying on the government contractor defense and the federal officer removal statute. Oliver asked the…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · October 31, 2014 · in the opinion
Netzer v. Union Carbide Corp. (2014)
…without subpoena by defendants";\[8\] — May 26, 2014: Netzer to "name \most likely to use' general product identification fact witnesses from the original fact witness list who have previously been deposed";\[9\] — June 9, 2014: "Last…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · March 7, 2013 · in the opinion
Joyner v. AC & R. Insulation Co. (2013)
…the weight of the proof presented—that matters." Id. at 782-83. After reviewing the conflicting cases, this court finds the analysis in Hagen cogent and consistent with the general removal standard. 28 U.S.C. …
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 7, 1998 · in the opinion
ACandS v. Abate (1998)
The Western Electric plant was comprised of several buildings and was approximately three miles long and one-and-one-quarter miles deep. Morrow indicated that he worked primarily in the wire insulation building until he became…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · February 10, 2005 · in the opinion
Wilson v. John Crane, Inc. (2005)
…that courts consider whether the party seeking the withdrawal or amendment has acted with due diligence. In more general terms, courts should seek to ascertain whether the aggrieved party was careless in not timely filing its…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · September 12, 1994 · in the opinion
US Gypsum v. Baltimore (1994)
…defendant's argument that certain deposition testimony was irrelevant as state of the art evidence merely because it was the testimony of an asbestos manufacturer's medical director rather than evidence from the general scientific community…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · September 29, 2016 · in the opinion
Rhodes v. McIC, Inc. (2016)
…Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 199 (4th Cir. 2008) (language in general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), "is deliberately parallel to the requirements for notice pleading found in Rule 8…