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

Search

20 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · December 30, 2016

    Shaw v. Andritz Inc. (2016)

    …law governs. Maritime Law and Navy Ships; Choice of Law Worksites: Electric Boat shipyard (General Dynamics); General Dynamics Electric Boat Shipyard, Groton sheet metal worker General Dynamics Electric Boat Shipyard Groton 1952-1954 and 1957-1967

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · January 3, 2017 · in the opinion

    Rhodes v. Mcic, Inc. (2017)

    General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David J. Quigg, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC & Donald S. Meringer, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC. General Refractories, Co., Cross Defendant, represented by John Stewart Cobb, North and Cobb…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin · April 12, 2017 · in the opinion

    Carroll v. Abb, Inc. (2017)

    …motion for summary judgment (dkt. \#253) is DENIED. 3) Plaintiff Patricia Carroll's motion to strike (dkt. \#403) is DENIED AS MOOT. 4) Defendants General Electric Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, and FMC Corporation are DISMISSED…

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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…

  7. 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.)…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · December 29, 2016 · in the opinion

    In re Asbestos Litigation Charlevoix v. CBS Corporation (2016)

    …2013, a copy of which is available on the court's website, http://www.ded.uscourts.gov. \[1\] CBS Corporation is sued as a successor-in-interest to Westinghouse Electric Corporation ("Westinghouse"). (D.1. 147 at…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · August 10, 2018

    Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC (2018)

    …a pathologist's tissue analysis, an occupational physician's exposure opinions, a scientist's general testimony on how asbestos causes disease, a historian's account of what was known about asbestos hazards, and studies and videos…

  11. 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…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · January 19, 2017 · in the opinion

    Evans v. CBS Corp. (2017)

    …must "assess the general features of the type of incident involved," to determine whether the incident has "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce\[.\]" Second, a court must determine whether "the general character" of the "activity…

  13. 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…

  14. 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…

  15. 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…

  16. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · January 31, 2011 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. Aurora Pump Co. (2011)

    …NASH ENGINEERING COMPANY; GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. (sued individually and as successor-in- interest to GARLOCK, INC. and US GASKET CO.); GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS, INC.; HARDIE-TYNES, LLC. (sued…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois · August 28, 2015 · in the opinion

    McALVEY v. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC (2015)

    …limited to the frequency, regularity and proximity of Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos products in general and his conclusion that Plaintiff experienced a significant exposure to asbestos based on his work activities. Finally, Defendants argue that…

  18. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 24, 2008 · in the opinion

    Cunningham v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2008)

    …booster pumps, the bilge pumps, and fire and flushing pumps. Cunningham would have had technical manuals for such products available. In general, the manufacturers would provide their equipment to the shipyard, which would assemble, install, and…

  19. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 1, 2009 · in the opinion

    Handley v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2009)

    …purpose of judicial construction of a statute is to determine the meaning that comports most closely with the intent of the Legislature "\with the view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute…

  20. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 2, 2009 · in the opinion

    Wangen v. Gardner Denver, Inc. (2009)

    …d\] that Soco West, Inc. is not subject to jurisdiction in the State of Washington." Plant Insulation Company presented a declaration from its general counsel. Based upon his personal knowledge, he averred that the company was…