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

Search

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

  1. Court case · Mississippi Supreme Court · December 12, 1990 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Edwards (1990)

    … 15-1-35, citing the general rule that the statute began to run from the date of publication of the allegedly libelous statement to a third person. Staheli argued that the statute did not begin to…

  2. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · July 24, 1979 · in the opinion

    Nolan v. Johns-Manville Asbestos & Magnesia Materials Co. (1979)

    …defective product. See Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 69 S.Ct. 1018, 11 A.L.R.2d 252; Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. Barker, 228 F.2d 842; Brush Beryllium Co. v. Meckley, 284…

  3. 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…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · January 30, 1986 · in the opinion

    Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (1986)

    …a given industry. They are often set forth in some type of code, such as a building code or electrical code, or they may be adopted by the trade organization of a given industry. State of…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia · July 19, 1984 · in the opinion

    Joyce v. AC & s., Inc. (1984)

    …asbestos insulation materials. Plaintiff, an industrial electrician who had worked with asbestos insulation from 1948 to 1972, claimed that inhalation of asbestos fibers and dust during that period had caused him to develop mesothelioma, a cancerous…

  6. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 1996

    Egan v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (1996)

    …appeals court affirmed the bench-trial judgment against Owens-Corning Fiberglass (OCF), including the $350,000 general damages award and the set-off ruling, and rejected the plaintiff's request for punitive damages under Ohio law.…

  7. Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 8, 1987

    Swogger v. Waterman SS Corp. (1987)

    …contribution and indemnity are not barred by New York's General Obligations Law. Maritime Law and Navy Ships Worksites: engine rooms of some 13 vessels marine engineer engine rooms of some 13 vessels more than 35…

  8. Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · March 25, 2003

    Jurich v. Garlock, Inc. (2003)

    …applied. One statute covers asbestos claims against those who mined and sold asbestos. The other is the general ten-year statute of repose for product claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · February 28, 1986 · in the opinion

    Joyce v. AC and S., Inc. (1986)

    No ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed outside of the employment shall be compensable, except: (1) When it follows as an incident of occupational disease as defined in this title; or…

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · January 30, 1984 · in the opinion

    Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, A Div. of Litton (1984)

    …injury to ship construction worker on board ship being constructed in navigable waters is maritime tort; but since ship construction contract "was non-maritime" and "neither \[plaintiff's\] general employment, nor his activities at the time…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · June 10, 1986 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …Inc., Rapid American, Uni-Royal, Carolina Asbestos Co., J. Franklin Burke General Asbestos Co., Ruberoid Company, Keaseey Mattison Co., Asten Hill Manufacturing Co. Argued December 17, 1985. Filed June 10, 1986. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. [\60…

  14. 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…

  15. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · March 25, 1991 · in the opinion

    Landrigan v. Celotex Corp. (1991)

    …that in toxic-tort litigation, a scientific theory of causation that has not yet reached general acceptance may be found to be sufficiently reliable if it is based on a sound, adequately-founded scientific methodology involving…

  16. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · August 13, 1982 · in the opinion

    Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1982)

    …to his health. We thus regard Wisconsin Natural Gas to be an exceptional application of the more general rule that the cause of action accrues when the asbestos-caused disease becomes diagnosable — e.g., provable by…

  17. 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…

  18. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · April 26, 1999 · in the opinion

    Holmes v. ACandS, Inc. (1999)

    …year discovery based statute of limitations applicable to product liability claims. The comprehensiveness of the medical malpractice act is evidence of the legislature's intent that it should prevail over the more general wrongful death statute…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · June 23, 1999 · in the opinion

    Lambert v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1999)

    …we must address two issues. First, we must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether the incident had "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce." Id. (quoting Sisson v. Ruby…

  20. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 20, 1992 · in the opinion

    Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1992)

    …TAMILIA, KELLY and JOHNSON, JJ. [\442] WIEAND, Judge: The general issue in this asbestos exposure action is whether Pennsylvania, in the context of asbestos actions, shall be a one-disease or two-disease state. More specifically…