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

Search

15 results for “General Electric”

  1. 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…

  2. Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 3, 2013

    Ambruso v. Goulds Pumps (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2013)

    …D. Roosevelt electrical engineer 1950s-1980s; shipfitter and seaman in the United States Navy Brooklyn Navy Yard Brooklyn 1940s; shipfitter and seaman in the United States Navy USS Chicago 1940s; insulator 1950s-1990s; general laborer, bus…

  3. 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…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · February 24, 2000 · in the opinion

    Vasura v. Acands (2000)

    …448, 451 (9th Cir.1994). Others have held that the relevant time period for ascertaining foreign state status is that in which the conduct at issue took place. See General Electric Capital Corp. v. Grossman, 991…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. Court case · Georgia Court of Appeals · March 14, 2001

    Hoffman v. AC&S, Inc. (2001)

    …site at some unspecified time during the 1960s is insufficient. An expert's general opinion that workers were exposed to asbestos products does not supply the missing link to a particular defendant. Product Identification; Expert Testimony…

  10. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · March 17, 1999

    Novicki v. Rapid-American Corp. (1999)

    …and Rapid-American conceded it did not. The case therefore fell under section 5, the general product liability limitation and repose provision. Because the parties had not briefed section 5, the court remanded for further argument…

  11. Court case · Texas Supreme Court · November 30, 2000 · in the opinion

    Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp. (2000)

    …American argues that Pustejovsky's lack of knowledge of the scope of his damages from his exposure to asbestos does not affect the accrual of his cause of action. Following these general rules, Rapid American contends…

  12. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · November 6, 2001 · in the opinion

    Allied Signal, Inc. v. Herring (2001)

    …[\1036] Moreover, section 2 was enacted to extend the general limitations period in express recognition of the long latency period associated with asbestos-related diseases and illnesses. Extending the limitations period only for the very few…

  13. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · January 17, 2001 · in the opinion

    Crooks v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (2001)

    …principle of stare decisis, the civil law statutes and codes are usually drafted in more general terms than common-law statutes and thus depend more on judges to render them concrete through judicial interpretation. Id. The…

  14. 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…

  15. Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 29, 1997 · in the opinion

    Mtr. OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (1997)

    …attributed to the settling defendants would have been increased and that of Carey correspondingly decreased. Such a result would clearly be damaging to the plaintiffs by reason of the application of General Obligations Law § 15-108…