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

Search

11 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · August 26, 2022 · in the opinion

    Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022)

    …or supplying an asbestos-containing product. Nonetheless, plaintiffs argue that General Electric can be held liable for its failure to warn of the dangers associated with asbestos insulation. According to plaintiffs, defendant was aware that asbestos…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois · February 25, 2020

    Hicks v. Ford Motor Company (2020)

    …that defendant. Asbestos Bankruptcies; Personal Jurisdiction; Venue, Removal and Transfer Worksites: City of Bloomington, Bloomington; General Electric City of Bloomington employee working with fleet vehicles City of Bloomington Bloomington; husband of General Electric worker General Electric

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · November 10, 2020 · in the opinion

    Longobardi v. Honeywell International Inc. (2020)

    …CUMMINS, INC., DCO, LLC, EATON CORPORATION, f/k/a Cutler-Hammer, FEDERAL MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, successor to Fel-Pro, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, JOHN CRANE, INC., KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY, MACK TRUCKS, INC., MOTION CONTROL INDUSTRIES…

  4. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · December 4, 2012 · in the opinion

    Melford v. Abex Corporation (2012)

    …as the doctrine; namely "wasted resources because of piecemeal litigation, the possibility of conflicting judgments, and a general concern that the courts may unduly interfere with each other's affairs." TPM Holdings, Inc. v. Intra-Gold…

  5. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 8, 2016 · in the opinion

    Lepore v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (2016)

    …and pipefitter at numerous jobsites, and was later diagnosed with mesothelioma. The defendant, Perini Corporation, had allegedly been the general contractor at three of those jobsites. (Casey, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 1225.) Casey…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · February 25, 2022 · in the opinion

    Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022)

    …the direct and circumstantial evidence discussed herein — including general causation expert testimony to which ZF has not objected — is sufficient on its own to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Strick's…

  7. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · March 5, 2015 · in the opinion

    Jones v. 84 Lumber Company (2015)

    …which was to standardize and simplify the proof of laws of foreign states." Id. In 1940, the Rhode Island General Assembly enacted a revised form of the Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act, P.L. 1940…

  8. 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…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky · October 26, 2017 · in the opinion

    Surita v. Arvinmeritor, Inc. (2017)

    …supplies to support the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. \[Id. at 100:8-16.\] She was also responsible for general maintenance of her truck and trailers, including changing flat tires and working on the brakes. \[Id…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota · September 21, 2017 · in the opinion

    Filipek v. the Boeing Company (2017)

    …NO. 23: Admit that Plaintiff Marlin Filipek was diagnosed with an asbestos- related disease prior to May 19, 2010. ANSWER: Plaintiffs incorporate by reference General Objections 1-8. Subject to and without waiving these objections, admit…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · October 28, 2022 · in the opinion

    Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022)

    …. which of Defendants' experts offer the challenged general causation opinion." (Id. at 30.) The Court did not have the benefit of knowing which experts seek to testify that exposure to vehicle friction products categorically cannot cause…