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

Search

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

  1. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · March 2, 1994

    Atkinson v. Celotex Corp. (1994)

    …Service Refinery approximately 35 years; electrician Cities Service Refinery 22 years; various crafts Cities Service Refinery 18 years; pipe fitter Cities Service Refinery 35 years; general craft foreman Cities Service Refinery 32 years; laborer Cities Service…

  2. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · March 6, 1981 · in the opinion

    Locke v. Johns-Manville (1981)

    …the defendants in the November 1978 order appealed from. The record shows that since approximately 1948 plaintiff had been employed as an industrial electrician by various contractors at sites in Virginia, New York and North Carolina…

  3. 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…

  4. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 5, 1984 · in the opinion

    Weinberg v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984)

    …Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." 28 U.S.C…

  5. Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · October 25, 1983 · in the opinion

    Froud v. Celotex Corp. (1983)

    …2d 199, 214-15, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 1595-96 (Black, J., dissenting); General Dynamics Corp., Electric Boat Division, v. Benefits Review Board (2d Cir.1977), 565 F.2d 208, 212; Williams v. Ray (1978), 146…

  6. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · April 19, 1982 · in the opinion

    Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1982)

    …Rather, defendants state, the cost "will be borne by the public at large and reflected in a general, across the board increase in premiums to compensate for unanticipated risks." There is some truth in this assertion…

  7. Court case · Minnesota Supreme Court · May 14, 1982 · in the opinion

    DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (1982)

    …the court concluded that because the tolling provisions of the general limitations statute were in existence prior to the enactment of the wrongful death statute the legislature "could not possibly have had in mind that the…

  8. Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · February 6, 1986 · in the opinion

    Costello v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (1986)

    …242.) Applying a rule of reasonableness it was concluded that the intent of the General Assembly was that the time within which the cause of action may be discovered cannot remain open-ended and that it…

  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, 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…

  11. 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…

  12. Court case · Iowa Supreme Court · February 17, 1993 · in the opinion

    Beeman v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Fund (1993)

    …convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Iowa Code § 668A.1. Beeman apparently agrees that punitive damages may not be assessed against Keene based on the general knowledge of the asbestos industry. Instead, there must be clear, convincing, and…

  13. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · May 9, 1991 · in the opinion

    Wehmeier v. Unr Industries, Inc. (1991)

    …OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Solomon stated it was his general impression that the level of asbestos used at UNARCO's Bloomington plant was not safe. Solomon stated he never saw chrysotile asbestos ground…

  14. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · June 3, 1985 · in the opinion

    Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)

    …Court has expressly held, in Turner v. General Motors Corporation,\[36\] that, although evidence of the expectations of the ordinary consumer and the care of a prudent manufacturer may be introduced at trial, "henceforth in the…

  15. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · February 6, 1992 · in the opinion

    Ocasek v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Comp. Fund (1992)

    …both Illinois and federal statutes. Neither, however, is controlling here. Although, as a general matter, the Illinois Code provides that "\[e\]very judgment shall bear interest thereon ...," Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. [\154] 110, para. 12-109…

  16. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · July 30, 1993 · in the opinion

    Adcock v. Brakegate, Ltd. (1993)

    …under Illinois common law. However, Fahner does not represent that conclusion because it involved a statutory enforcement action brought by the Illinois Attorney General pursuant to the Illinois Antitrust Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 38…

  17. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · March 19, 1991 · in the opinion

    Threadgill v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1991)

    …carbon copy of an October 1, 1935 letter from Bridgeport, Connecticut (Raybestos headquarters), to Vandiver Brown, general counsel for Johns-Manville, indicates that the Rossiter letter was enclosed. The copy, while unsigned, contains the word "President…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · October 28, 1981 · in the opinion

    Fearson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)

    …The defendants' first argument is that plaintiff's "survival" claim is time-barred under the law of the District of Columbia, which provides that the general period of limitations is three years. See D.C.Code …

  19. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit · July 30, 1982 · in the opinion

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

    …first action may expressly reserve plaintiff's right to maintain second action). \[35\] Johns-Manville has catalogued an impressive array of court decisions exemplifying the general res judicata rule against splitting an indivisible cause of action…

  20. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · February 27, 1992 · in the opinion

    Stevenson v. Keene Corp. (1992)

    …mid 1980's, concern over the insurance industry and tort litigation prompted many reports on both a national and state level. See United States Attorney General's Tort Policy Working Group, Report on the Causes, Extent…