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 · 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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…

  4. 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.)…

  5. 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…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 19, 1999 · in the opinion

    Anderson v. Metalclad Insulation Corp. (1999)

    General Motors Corp., supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 356, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 580; Barr v. ACandS, Inc., supra, 57 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1049-1053, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 494.) The issue…

  7. Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · February 15, 2006 · in the opinion

    Weihl v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (2006)

    …in a general fashion. He then alleged that defendants were "regularly engaged in the business of manufacturing, designing, processing, marketing, distributing, applying, repairing, and/or selling products containing asbestos fiber for use in electrical products and…

  8. 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…

  9. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 11, 2007 · in the opinion

    Cadlo v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation (2007)

    …Cadlo's\] contraction of cancer, \[Maxlyn Cadlo\] would have continued her marital relationship with him for another 20 years." (See Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1125, 1152 \[briefs are reliable indications…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Central District of California · June 14, 2012 · in the opinion

    Couscouris v. Hatch Grinding Wheels, Inc. (2012)

    …2012. United States District Court, C.D. California. CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL GEORGE H. KING, District Judge. Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order re: Motion for Remand and for Award of Costs Incurred This matter is before us on…

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 8, 2014 · in the opinion

    Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation (2014)

    …response, the plaintiff provided "little more than general allegations against" the defendant and "d\[id\] not state specific facts showing that \[the plaintiff\] was actually exposed to asbestos-containing material from \[the defendant's\] products." (Id…

  15. 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…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of California · March 17, 2014 · in the opinion

    Willis v. Buffalo Pumps Inc. (2014)

    …or dust allaying media. (Stewart Decl. ex G).\[2\] Plaintiff also emphasizes Defendant's concession that it was familiar with and subject to California general industry safety orders (Caldo Trans. 2162:16-22), that it knew…

  17. 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…

  18. 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…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · June 30, 2014 · in the opinion

    Barabin v. AstenJOHNSON, Inc. (2014)

    …34); Gould MTD (Dkt. \# 36).) II. ANALYSIS A. Removal Jurisdiction In general, a defendant may remove to federal court any state action over which a district court would have original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. …

  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…