11 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · August 26, 2022 · in the opinion
Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022)
…of America, Inc. (Rec. Doc. 739), Foster-Wheeler LLC (Rec. Docs. 693, 726, 730), General Electric Company (Rec. Docs. 702, 705), and ViacomCBS Inc. (Rec. Docs. 727, 729), plaintiffs' respective oppositions to each motion (Rec. Docs…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · August 5, 2009 · in the opinion
Crowder V AW Chesterton Co. (2009)
…date the party last parted with possession or control of the product" constituted a substantive law (see, Connecticut General Statute §52-577\[a\]). In Blatz v. Westinehouse Electric Corp., 274 A.D.2d 491 (2nd Dept.…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 30, 2021
Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Asbestos, 2021)
…motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert Dr. Brody (he may give general but not specific causation testimony) and denied Warren Pumps' and Honeywell's motion to exclude "every exposure" testimony, without prejudice to renewed objections at trial…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · May 17, 2017
Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017)
…and makes Volkswagen vehicles, asked to be dismissed because Washington courts lacked personal jurisdiction over it. The court found no general jurisdiction, since Volkswagen AG is neither incorporated nor based in Washington. It also found no…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 23, 2018
Chen v. Volkswagen Group of America (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2018)
…asked to dismiss the case because Texas was a more convenient forum. The court held that it lacked general jurisdiction over Volkswagen and Nissan. It found long-arm jurisdiction proper because Chen's testimony and the…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · May 17, 2017
Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017)
…where the plaintiff's exposure occurred in Toronto. General jurisdiction was lacking because the defendant was not at home in Washington. Personal Jurisdiction Worksites: Toronto worked with brakes and clutches on Volkswagen vehicles Toronto 1986-1994
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · May 23, 2017
Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017)
…in Ohio, asked to be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court agreed. It found no general jurisdiction, because Dana Companies is neither incorporated nor headquartered in Washington. It found no specific jurisdiction either. The…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 30, 2013 · in the opinion
Steiner v. Volkswagen Group OF America, Inc. (2013)
…fn. 22. As defendants point out, Ledesma referred to the scope of expert cross-examination in general, as set forth in section 721, subdivision (a), and did not address the limits of permissible cross-examination regarding…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · September 27, 2021 · in the opinion
Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2021)
…as already mentioned, Rule 26 provides two exceptions to the general rule that a party may not obtain discovery from another party's consulting expert: "(i) as provided in Rule 35(b); or (ii) on showing…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · February 25, 2022 · in the opinion
Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022)
…in 1974 by prohibiting the use of compressed air for cleaning purposes except when reduced to a slow speed and paired with personal protective equipment. Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Equipment, General, 39 Fed. Reg…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · August 25, 2022 · in the opinion
Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022)
…judgment is disfavored when issues of intent or state of mind are involved, plaintiffs fail to consider that this is a general rule. The rule does not preclude this Court from evaluating the merits of such…