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

Search

16 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · September 16, 2016

    George v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016)

    …County state court. Even assuming consent-by-registration survives Daimler, Pennsylvania's registration statute limits general jurisdiction to acts occurring during the period of registration, so a registration that began after the alleged injury does not…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · July 25, 2019

    Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent (2019)

    …Worksites: General Electric building, 32nd and Chestnut Streets; USS Cambria; General Electric building at 32nd and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia Navy service aboard the USS Cambria USS Cambria 1964-1967; worked at General Electric property General Electric…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia · April 20, 2009 · in the opinion

    Hamrick v. A & I Company (2009)

    …a Durametallic Corp. and GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC f/k/a Garlock, Inc. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and GOODRICH CORPORATION and as successor-in-interest to Goodrich-Gulf Chemical, Inc. f/k/a…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama · September 13, 2012 · in the opinion

    Brown v. the Boeing Company (2012)

    …under submission. DONE and ORDERED. \[1\] Plaintiff's complaint also named CBS Corporation (f/k/a Viacom, Inc.), DAP Products, Inc., General Electric Company, Georgia-Pacific LLC, Goodrich Corporation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, RT Vanderbilt Company…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Central District of California · June 18, 2020 · in the opinion

    Kruse v. Actuant Corporation (2020)

    … 3.) After his military service, Mr. Jimenez was "honorably discharged as the civilian equivalent of a Certified Aircraft Electrical Mechanic and Technician." (Id.) Apart from his service, Mr. Jimenez also "performed both supervisorial and hands-on…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2024 · in the opinion

    Williams v. JM Manufacturing Company, Inc. (2024)

    …conclusion about the scope of this duty and explicitly disapproved Campbell. (Kesner, at p. 1156.) "The \general rule' of duty in California is established by statute." (Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 993…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas · March 31, 2021

    LaFRENTZ v. Lockheed Martin Corporation (2021)

    The court denied 3M and General Dynamics' request for an adverse inference jury instruction for spoliation, but granted a lesser remedy: a limited jury instruction describing the unanswered preservation request and the burial of the lung…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · February 26, 2016

    Boyd v. Boeing Company (2016)

    The court denied Lockheed Martin's and General Dynamics' motions to reconsider the order allowing plaintiffs to add them as defendants after the amendment deadline, and denied their motion to strike them from the amended complaint…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · September 9, 2013 · in the opinion

    Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2013)

    …like opposing counsel talking to employees of his clients and that he holds himself to the same standard. He chooses as a general rule not to speak to employees of opposing counsel's clients. July 15…

  10. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 8, 2017 · in the opinion

    Paulus v. JM Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2017)

    …so by letter brief, and they have done so. Appellant argues the court retains jurisdiction under the general authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 128 (courts have power to "compel obedience to its judgments, orders…

  11. Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 14, 2016 · in the opinion

    Warren v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2016)

    …plaintiff cites to general cases holding that evidence is a procedural issue and is thus governed by the forum state.\[8\] Plaintiff also cites the statement in People v Greenburg (50 AD3d 195 \[1st Dept 2008…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi · September 13, 2022 · in the opinion

    Webb v. 3M Company (2022)

    …Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000). But unlike the general removal statute, the Court must broadly construe the federal officer removal statute in favor of a federal forum. Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corp.…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 27, 2021 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. JM Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021)

    …litigant to rely on abstract generalities, but must instruct in specific terms that relate the party's [\1088] theory to the particular case." (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 \[34 Cal…

  14. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · August 12, 2010 · in the opinion

    Connell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2010)

    …objects to the purported admission of answers to interrogatories of General Motors Corporation. Appellee did not offer into evidence, and the trial judge did not allow into evidence, any answers to interrogatories of General Motors Corporation…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 1, 2014 · in the opinion

    Collin v. Calportland Company (2014)

    …Corp. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1231 (Casey).) In Casey, the plaintiff accused the defendant, a general contractor, of exposing him to asbestos at jobsites where the plaintiff worked for a subcontractor. (Id. at p…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · June 20, 2017 · in the opinion

    Thrash v. Cirrus Enterprises, LLC (2017)

    …749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014) ("We recognize that defendants enjoy much broader removal rights under the federal officer removal statute than they do under the general removal statute\[.\]"); Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp…