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

Search

12 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)

    …of America, Inc. (Rec. Doc. 739), Foster-Wheeler LLC (Rec. Docs. 693, 726, 730), General Electric Company (Rec. Docs. 702, 705), and ViacomCBS Inc. (Rec. Docs. 727, 729), plaintiffs' respective oppositions to each motion (Rec. Docs…

  2. Court case · New York Supreme Court · August 5, 2009 · in the opinion

    Crowder V AW Chesterton Co. (2009)

    …date the party last parted with possession or control of the product" constituted a substantive law (see, Connecticut General Statute §52-577\[a\]). In Blatz v. Westinehouse Electric Corp., 274 A.D.2d 491 (2nd Dept.…

  3. 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…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · July 31, 2002

    In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (2002)

    Tens of thousands of people sued in state courts across the country, claiming that asbestos in friction products such as brake pads gave them or their relatives mesothelioma, lung, laryngeal or esophageal cancer, or asbestosis. They sued makers and…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · May 17, 2017

    Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017)

    …and makes Volkswagen vehicles, asked to be dismissed because Washington courts lacked personal jurisdiction over it. The court found no general jurisdiction, since Volkswagen AG is neither incorporated nor based in Washington. It also found no…

  6. Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 23, 2018

    Chen v. Volkswagen Group of America (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2018)

    …asked to dismiss the case because Texas was a more convenient forum. The court held that it lacked general jurisdiction over Volkswagen and Nissan. It found long-arm jurisdiction proper because Chen's testimony and the…

  7. Court case · New York Supreme Court · April 26, 2019

    Gayoso v. Nissan North America (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2019)

    …assert it with specificity in its answer, and general denials do not preserve it. Where the parties' experts rely on conflicting studies, issues of fact on general and specific causation preclude summary judgment. Causation; Expert Testimony…

  8. Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 20, 2019

    Temperino v. Amchem Prods. (2019)

    …cigarettes a day for about 37 years. Honda moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff could not prove general or specific causation. Several other defendants asked the court to bar plaintiff's medical experts and, if successful…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · May 17, 2017

    Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017)

    …where the plaintiff's exposure occurred in Toronto. General jurisdiction was lacking because the defendant was not at home in Washington. Personal Jurisdiction Worksites: Toronto worked with brakes and clutches on Volkswagen vehicles Toronto 1986-1994

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · May 23, 2017

    Hodjera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2017)

    …in Ohio, asked to be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court agreed. It found no general jurisdiction, because Dana Companies is neither incorporated nor headquartered in Washington. It found no specific jurisdiction either. The…

  11. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · August 1, 2022 · in the opinion

    Carroll v. Akebono Brake Corporation (2022)

    …and that it should be construed, not as a grant of power to make broad and general rules, but as a limitation upon the courts requiring that the customary rules having to do with the minutiæ…

  12. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 30, 2013 · in the opinion

    Steiner v. Volkswagen Group OF America, Inc. (2013)

    …fn. 22. As defendants point out, Ledesma referred to the scope of expert cross-examination in general, as set forth in section 721, subdivision (a), and did not address the limits of permissible cross-examination regarding…