8 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · September 9, 2021
Murphy v. Union Carbide Corporation (2021)
…vessel, do not suffice. Government Contractor Defense and Removal; Venue, Removal and Transfer Worksites: Bethlehem Steel Key Highway Shipyard; Key Highway Shipyard, Baltimore Shipyard worker — helper, electrical equipment; apprentice electrician Key Highway Shipyard Baltimore 1973-1974
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · May 5, 2016
Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016)
Charles Arbogast, Jr., and his wife Barbara sued twenty-seven companies, alleging that as manufacturers or distributors of various products they exposed him to asbestos and caused his mesothelioma. The complaint raised strict liability, negligence,…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · July 18, 2016
Oliver v. Campbell McCORMICK, Inc. (2016)
…1972 to 1978. Campbell-McCormick brought in third-party defendants for contribution, and General Electric removed the case to federal court, relying on the government contractor defense and the federal officer removal statute. Oliver asked the…
-
Court case · Mississippi Supreme Court · October 14, 2010
Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Pittman (2010)
Lonnie Pittman was named as a plaintiff in a December 2002 asbestos suit against many companies. Defendants later learned he had died in March 2001, almost two years before the suit was filed. His widow, Mary Pittman, was substituted as plaintiff…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · October 31, 2014 · in the opinion
Netzer v. Union Carbide Corp. (2014)
…without subpoena by defendants";\[8\] — May 26, 2014: Netzer to "name \most likely to use' general product identification fact witnesses from the original fact witness list who have previously been deposed";\[9\] — June 9, 2014: "Last…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · March 7, 2013 · in the opinion
Joyner v. AC & R. Insulation Co. (2013)
…the weight of the proof presented—that matters." Id. at 782-83. After reviewing the conflicting cases, this court finds the analysis in Hagen cogent and consistent with the general removal standard. 28 U.S.C. …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Utah · June 24, 2013 · in the opinion
Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (2013)
…Dr. Dikman testified that the general population is exposed to asbestos in the ambient air.\[16\] Dr. Dikman clarified that "the measurements in the air samples in the general population, and air samples have been used…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · September 29, 2016 · in the opinion
Rhodes v. McIC, Inc. (2016)
…Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 199 (4th Cir. 2008) (language in general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), "is deliberately parallel to the requirements for notice pleading found in Rule 8…