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

Search

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

  1. 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…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · Hawaii Supreme Court · May 3, 1984 · in the opinion

    Nobriga v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (1984)

    …P.2d 509 (1970), we noted that "\[t\]he general rule in measuring damages is \to give a sum of money to the person wronged which as nearly as possible, will restore him to the position…

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · U.S. Supreme Court · June 25, 1997 · in the opinion

    Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor (1997)

    "But the settlement does more than simply provide a general recovery fund," the Court of Appeals immediately added; "\[r\]ather, it makes important judgments on how recovery is to be allocated among different kinds of plaintiffs…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · January 22, 1986 · in the opinion

    Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1986)

    …they have already been punished enough. They stated to the trial judge that punitive damages serve to motivate "private attorneys general" to bring suit, but argued that persons injured by asbestos have motivation enough to sue…

  7. Court case · Tennessee Supreme Court · June 7, 2011 · in the opinion

    Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc. (2011)

    …plans of reorganization for Raybestos and Johns Manville had been confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court before Mrs. Nye filed her complaint.\[11\] As a general matter, confirmation of the plan of reorganization ends the automatic stay…

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · January 21, 1985 · in the opinion

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

    …As a consequence, federal courts would become increasingly responsible for establishing a general federal tort law in a manner we think is inconsistent with the teachings of Erie and the logic behind our federal system. Cf…

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · December 30, 1982 · in the opinion

    Murphree v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (1982)

    …Tennessee's various statutes of limitations governing products liability actions has created troublesome problems for Tennessee courts in the past two decades. In 1969 the Tennessee Supreme Court in Jackson v. General Motors, 223 Tenn. 12…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · March 13, 1981 · in the opinion

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

    …to be persuaded that the choice of law made in Flatt is correct. That is, under any standard, federal law applies. Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 [\1361] (5th Cir. 1975); Willis v…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 23, 1984 · in the opinion

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

    …not prove that he presently suffers from that disease. In arguing that the cancer evidence was properly admissible, Jackson relies on the general rule of tort law that allows for recovery of all harms — past, present…

  14. Court case · Maine Supreme Judicial Court · January 17, 1984 · in the opinion

    Austin v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (1984)

    …at 799; Prosser, supra at 522. Recent cases typified by Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal.3d 725, 575 P.2d 1162, 144 Cal.Rptr. 380 (1978) (ordinary contributory negligence of plaintiff to be considered…

  15. 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 …

  16. 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…

  17. Court case · New York Court of Appeals · October 29, 1981 · in the opinion

    Matter of Steinhardt v. JohnsManville Corp. (1981)

    …such claims are diligently and expeditiously pursued. An exception to the general period of limitation rule is required when the pathological effect of an injury occurs without perceptible trauma, and the victim is blamelessly ignorant of…

  18. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · April 7, 1981 · in the opinion

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

    …does not apply to cases already filed before the amendment was enacted. Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution states that the "general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, ..." Section 1.58(A)(1…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi · November 21, 1980 · in the opinion

    McCarty v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1980)

    …1969) the Court stated: "Because this is a diversity case, the law of the state where the district court sat controls questions [\339] of res judicata and estoppel. See also Aerojet-General Aviation Corp. v. Askew…

  20. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · December 7, 1983 · in the opinion

    Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983)

    …other issues remaining in relation to defendant Raybestos-Manhattan, the first issue pertains to the judge's instruction to the jury on the possible effect of a general 10-year statute of limitations, T.C.A…