17 results for “General Electric”
-
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.
-
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.
-
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…
-
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.)…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 15, 1990
Uram v. Abex Corp. (1990)
…run long before 1987. For Virginia's consortium claim, the court applied the general one-year statute with a discovery rule. It found she should likewise have suspected the cause in 1976, so her claim was…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 31, 1995 · in the opinion
Lineaweaver v. Plant Insulation Co. (1995)
…914 F.2d 360, 372-373, 383.) Other cases dispense entirely with evidence of where a product was used by merely requiring proof that it was in general use at an industrial facility. Thus, Martin v…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · July 27, 2006 · in the opinion
Hopkins v. Plant Insulation Company (2006)
…at 1079. Like federal habeas law, federal bankruptcy law creates exceptions to the general rule of federal deference to state court judgments by empowering bankruptcy courts to avoid or modify state judgments. Id. For certain bankruptcy…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 30, 1994 · in the opinion
Williamson v. Plant Insulation Co. (1994)
…The proceedings here had not reached that stage when Wash Williamson died. (4) "The general rule is that \courts have inherent power to enter judgments nunc pro tunc so as to relate back to the time…