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

Search

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

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit · January 31, 1990

    Kraciun v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1990)

    …Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1953 onward (except Navy 1954-1958); service crew, general maintenance worker and electrical maintenance worker E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1948-1985; maintenance person…

  2. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · March 6, 1981 · in the opinion

    Locke v. Johns-Manville (1981)

    …the defendants in the November 1978 order appealed from. The record shows that since approximately 1948 plaintiff had been employed as an industrial electrician by various contractors at sites in Virginia, New York and North Carolina…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · March 20, 1990 · in the opinion

    Johnson v. Celotex Corp. (1990)

    …that there was exposure, but was compelled to come to that result. Plaintiff worked at the Navy Yard from 1942 to 1945 as an electrician's helper on board ships including the Missouri, the Iowa and…

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · North Carolina Supreme Court · November 5, 1985 · in the opinion

    Wilder v. Amatex Corp. (1985)

    …E.2d 281 (1972); Galligan v. Chapel Hill, 276 N.C. 172, 171 S.E.2d 427 (1970); Domestic Electric Service Co., Inc. v. Rocky Mount, 20 N.C.App. 347, 201 S.E.2d 508…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · September 4, 1991 · in the opinion

    O'brien v. National Gypsum Co. (1991)

    …any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · September 22, 1987

    In re Asbestos Litigation (1987)

    Asbestos manufacturers defending personal injury suits in the federal district court in New Jersey challenged a New Jersey Supreme Court rule. Under Beshada and later cases, asbestos defendants could not use the "state-of-the-art" defense, which…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · May 7, 1986

    Silver v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …§ 1-50(6), barred the claim because his last exposure was in 1961. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the statute applies to wrongful death actions in general. It held, however, that the statute did not apply…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee · January 9, 1984 · in the opinion

    Johnson County, Tenn. v. US Gypsum Co. (1984)

    While it is true that contractors who perform construction work for the state operated universities are not protected by general statutes of limitation, see Dunn v. W.F. Jameson and Sons, Inc., 569 S.W.2d…

  10. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · November 28, 1988 · in the opinion

    Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1988)

    …113 (3d Cir.1985) (evidence of general use of Pittsburgh Corning's Unibestos at job site was sufficient to allow jury to find Pittsburgh Corning to be a factor in causing the plaintiff's injury). \[13…

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · October 21, 1980

    Ins. Co. North America v. Forty-Eight Insulations (1980)

    …Affiliated FM, Illinois National and Liberty Mutual lost, and Forty-Eight and Travelers largely won. Under standard comprehensive general liability policies, 'bodily injury' from asbestosis occurs when tissue damage begins on inhalation of fibers, not at…

  12. Court case · Missouri Supreme Court · September 10, 1991

    Hagen v. Celotex Corp. (1991)

    …A plaintiff must show through expert testimony that each defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Evidence showing only asbestos exposure in general, or that a defendant's product may have contributed…

  13. 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…

  14. 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…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · May 31, 1985 · in the opinion

    Krull v. Celotex Corp. (1985)

    …Supp. 818, 821-22 (N.D.Cal.1983). But the general rule in such cases remains that, subject to certain exceptions, the asset-acquiring company is not liable for the debts and liabilities of the seller…

  16. 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…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee · December 6, 1988 · in the opinion

    Potts v. Celotex Corp. (1988)

    …pleural thickening or asbestosis, then this change in the law must come from the Supreme Court of Tennessee or the Tennessee General Assembly. It is not a change which this court is allowed to make. Therefore…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York · December 7, 1989 · in the opinion

    Rummo v. The Celotex Corp. (In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit., 1989)

    …Ed. 1188 (1938). But this state's highest courts have not definitively analyzed the issue in published opinions. We turn therefore to the general law of torts, as would New York's highest court. MacPherson v…

  19. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · February 5, 1985 · in the opinion

    Meehan v. Celotex Corp. (1985)

    …of the negligent act. Indeed, as Gaboury itself says: "In determining the proper forum in which to bring suit under the general statute fixing venue where the cause of action \arose', or \accrued', the \injury occurred…

  20. 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…