32 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2
-
Court case · Mississippi Supreme Court · December 12, 1990 · in the opinion
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Edwards (1990)
… 15-1-35, citing the general rule that the statute began to run from the date of publication of the allegedly libelous statement to a third person. Staheli argued that the statute did not begin to…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · July 24, 1979 · in the opinion
Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos & Magnesia Materials Co. (1979)
…defective product. See Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 69 S.Ct. 1018, 11 A.L.R.2d 252; Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. Barker, 228 F.2d 842; Brush Beryllium Co. v. Meckley, 284…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · March 30, 1983 · in the opinion
Austin v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (1983)
…appears that the tests are the same, since, in general "\[o\]nce admiralty jurisdiction is established, then all of the substantive rules and precepts peculiar to the law of the sea become applicable." Brance v. Shumann…
-
Court case · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · August 24, 1989 · in the opinion
District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation (1989)
…hospitals, and government offices, are for the general use of the public, and hundreds or even thousands of people pass through each of them every day. Any child who grows up in the District and attends…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · January 30, 1986 · in the opinion
Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (1986)
…a given industry. They are often set forth in some type of code, such as a building code or electrical code, or they may be adopted by the trade organization of a given industry. State of…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · March 15, 1989 · in the opinion
In re Johns-Manville Corp. (1989)
…Thus, pursuant to ¶ 10.1(B) of the Plan and the general power of this Court, the Court retains jurisdiction to determine the instant dispute. The Plan also provides in ¶ 10.1(G) that the Court…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · September 22, 1987
In re Asbestos Litigation (1987)
Asbestos manufacturers defending personal injury suits in the federal district court in New Jersey challenged a New Jersey Supreme Court rule. Under Beshada and later cases, asbestos defendants could not use the "state-of-the-art" defense, which…
-
Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · March 25, 2003
Jurich v. Garlock, Inc. (2003)
…applied. One statute covers asbestos claims against those who mined and sold asbestos. The other is the general ten-year statute of repose for product claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · February 28, 1986 · in the opinion
Joyce v. AC and S., Inc. (1986)
No ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed outside of the employment shall be compensable, except: (1) When it follows as an incident of occupational disease as defined in this title; or…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota · January 11, 1982 · in the opinion
Bertrand v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)
…discretion to determine when it should be applied. The general rule should be that in cases where a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action or where, either for the reasons discussed above or…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · January 14, 1980 · in the opinion
Mooney v. Fibreboard Corp. (1980)
…discretion to determine when it should be applied. The general rule should be that in cases where a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action or where, either for the reasons discussed above or…
-
Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · April 27, 1990 · in the opinion
Jenkins v. Johns-Manville Products (1990)
…BROCHIN. Lawrence G. Moncher, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent-appellant Commissioner Of Labor, and respondent-cross-appellant in A-5659-86T7 (Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Lawrence G…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · August 13, 1982 · in the opinion
Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1982)
…to his health. We thus regard Wisconsin Natural Gas to be an exceptional application of the more general rule that the cause of action accrues when the asbestos-caused disease becomes diagnosable — e.g., provable by…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · June 30, 1992 · in the opinion
Feldman v. Owens-Illinois (In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litigation, 1992)
…statute: "There is no justification for rewarding recalcitrant non-settling defendants by permitting them to apply the General Obligations Law offset in a manner that reduces or even obliterates their own liability in cases where plaintiffs…
-
Court case · Ohio Supreme Court · October 14, 1987 · in the opinion
Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1987)
…it is important to understand that both alternative liability and market-share liability are exceptions to the general rule that a plaintiff has to prove an injury was caused by the negligence of a particular defendant…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 23, 1984 · in the opinion
Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984)
…a "less desirable longshoreman" in the future. Id. at 668. Bonura is inapposite to the case at bar. Bonura was decided under general maritime law, not Louisiana law. Furthermore, the instant record does not support an…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · April 26, 1999 · in the opinion
Holmes v. ACandS, Inc. (1999)
…year discovery based statute of limitations applicable to product liability claims. The comprehensiveness of the medical malpractice act is evidence of the legislature's intent that it should prevail over the more general wrongful death statute…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · June 23, 1999 · in the opinion
Lambert v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1999)
…we must address two issues. First, we must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether the incident had "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce." Id. (quoting Sisson v. Ruby…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 20, 1992 · in the opinion
Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1992)
…TAMILIA, KELLY and JOHNSON, JJ. [\442] WIEAND, Judge: The general issue in this asbestos exposure action is whether Pennsylvania, in the context of asbestos actions, shall be a one-disease or two-disease state. More specifically…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · March 1, 1983 · in the opinion
Carter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983)
…been even reasonably knowable. The supplier would thus be free of culpability, but a price of his doing business is to protect people from danger from his products — or to pay. General Motors Corp. v. Hopkins…