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

Search

28 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · January 31, 1986 · in the opinion

    Knauer v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …federal judiciary an equal power, and certainly no such judicial power could reasonably be inferred from the grant of authority to the Supreme Court to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure. When matters of state…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit · September 26, 1990 · in the opinion

    Hoffman v. Allied Corp. (1990)

    …however, that no asbestos products were used within the ordnance repair shop itself. [\1381] Leo Rapacilo was an electrician who worked in close proximity to asbestos products on the ships in dry dock at the shipyard…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia · July 19, 1984 · in the opinion

    Joyce v. AC & s., Inc. (1984)

    …asbestos insulation materials. Plaintiff, an industrial electrician who had worked with asbestos insulation from 1948 to 1972, claimed that inhalation of asbestos fibers and dust during that period had caused him to develop mesothelioma, a cancerous…

  5. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 1996

    Egan v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (1996)

    …appeals court affirmed the bench-trial judgment against Owens-Corning Fiberglass (OCF), including the $350,000 general damages award and the set-off ruling, and rejected the plaintiff's request for punitive damages under Ohio law.…

  6. Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 8, 1987

    Swogger v. Waterman SS Corp. (1987)

    …contribution and indemnity are not barred by New York's General Obligations Law. Maritime Law and Navy Ships Worksites: engine rooms of some 13 vessels marine engineer engine rooms of some 13 vessels more than 35…

  7. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · June 26, 2000 · in the opinion

    Baker v. ACandS (2000)

    He provided the following context: a party who signs a general release waiving all claims and discharging all parties will be precluded from thereafter suing a party who did not contribute consideration toward the release. However…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · January 30, 1984 · in the opinion

    Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, A Div. of Litton (1984)

    …injury to ship construction worker on board ship being constructed in navigable waters is maritime tort; but since ship construction contract "was non-maritime" and "neither \[plaintiff's\] general employment, nor his activities at the time…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · December 4, 1992 · in the opinion

    In re Joint E. & So. Dist. Asbestos Litigation (1992)

    …Plan-related documents. We therefore consider whether the changes were authorized by the more general reserved power of the Bankruptcy Court to modify the Plan "to the full extent permitted by the Code." Plan § 10.1…

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · May 24, 1983 · in the opinion

    Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard Corp. (1983)

    …forum. Defendants have not shown that any hardship complained of is the result of proceeding to trial now. Nor is there a showing that the difficulties inherent in the general situation, including potential judicial inefficiency, constitute…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · January 21, 1994 · in the opinion

    Tabolt v. Flintkote Co. (In re New York Asbestos Litigation, 1994)

    …at 982 F.2d 721 (2d Cir.1992), and the publication of numerous stories in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal — any well-informed citizen could possess general knowledge about Johns Manville, c.f.…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 26, 1982 · in the opinion

    Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …Borel, we conclude that Borel, while conclusive as to the general matter of a duty to warn on the part of manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation products, is ultimately ambiguous as to certain key issues. As…

  14. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · June 10, 1986 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …Inc., Rapid American, Uni-Royal, Carolina Asbestos Co., J. Franklin Burke General Asbestos Co., Ruberoid Company, Keaseey Mattison Co., Asten Hill Manufacturing Co. Argued December 17, 1985. Filed June 10, 1986. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. [\60…

  15. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · March 25, 1991 · in the opinion

    Landrigan v. Celotex Corp. (1991)

    …that in toxic-tort litigation, a scientific theory of causation that has not yet reached general acceptance may be found to be sufficiently reliable if it is based on a sound, adequately-founded scientific methodology involving…

  16. Court case · Delaware Superior Court · August 23, 1983 · in the opinion

    Nutt v. AC & S., Inc. (1983)

    …claims of mental anguish asserted by the plaintiff-wives are alleged in the amended complaints in broad and general language but are actually of two distinct types: mental anguish resulting from the witnessing of the physical…

  17. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · January 25, 1991 · in the opinion

    Moran v. G. & WH Corson, Inc. (1991)

    …with Bob Hinks. Q. About that knowledge? A. A general discussion, a light general thing that I had read about in the paper or, you know, not actually getting into detail. Q. You read about what…

  18. 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…

  19. 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…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia · January 26, 1982 · in the opinion

    Starling v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. (1982)

    …The label, intentional tort, is merely a general descriptive term for specific types of tortious conduct which share the common element that the actor intended to injure the object of his action. Prosser, Law of Torts…