46 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 3
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 5, 1984 · in the opinion
Weinberg v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984)
…Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." 28 U.S.C…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · Minnesota Supreme Court · May 14, 1982 · in the opinion
DeCosse v. Armstrong Cork Co. (1982)
…the court concluded that because the tolling provisions of the general limitations statute were in existence prior to the enactment of the wrongful death statute the legislature "could not possibly have had in mind that the…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · February 6, 1986 · in the opinion
Costello v. Unarco Industries, Inc. (1986)
…242.) Applying a rule of reasonableness it was concluded that the intent of the General Assembly was that the time within which the cause of action may be discovered cannot remain open-ended and that it…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…