24 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · April 10, 2024 · in the opinion
Legendre v. Louisiana Ins. Guaranty Association (2024)
…a role in causing the deceased's asbestos exposure, including, but not limited to: Hopeman Brothers, Inc., International Paper Company, Paramount Global, General Electric Company, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Foster-Wheeler, LLC, Uniroyal, Inc.…
-
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…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 17, 2002 · in the opinion
Andaloro v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (2002)
…Company, Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., Owens Brockway Glass Container, Inc., Studebaker Worthington, Inc., Uniroyal, Inc., Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Inc., WR Grace & Co., Armstrong World Industries, Inc., Fibreboard Corp., GAF Corporation. Appeal of: John Crane, Inc., Appellant…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · March 30, 1999 · in the opinion
Baker v. AC&S, Inc. (1999)
…v. Gamble, 201 Pa. 289, 50 A. 971 (1902); Turton v. Powelton Electric Co., 185 Pa. 406, 39 A. 1053 (1898). Thus, "\[e\]ven if two parties were equally responsible for the plaintiff's injury, one…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · March 15, 1989 · in the opinion
In re Johns-Manville Corp. (1989)
…Thus, pursuant to ¶ 10.1(B) of the Plan and the general power of this Court, the Court retains jurisdiction to determine the instant dispute. The Plan also provides in ¶ 10.1(G) that the Court…
-
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…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · May 15, 1998 · in the opinion
Porter Hayden v. Bullinger (1998)
…verdict in favor of the hirer. The trial proceeded, resulting in judgments in favor of the plaintiff against the adverse driver and his general employer. On the plaintiff's appeal, the Court vacated the judgment in…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · November 30, 1990 · in the opinion
In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit. (1990)
…Unliquidated Claims on File $4.794 billion Unpaid Settlements .434 billion 47,000 Future Claims 1.840 billion \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Total $7.068 billion\[3\] (1) The Trust, as movant, represented by its General Counsel, David T. Austern…
-
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…
-
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.…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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 …