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

Search

18 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · November 22, 1999

    Miller v. Foster Wheeler Co. (1999)

    Creighton Miller, as administrator of the estates of seamen William Blecker and Willie Holmes, sued a large group of manufacturers and shipping companies. Blecker was diagnosed with mesothelioma in August 1989 and died in October 1992. Holmes was…

  2. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · April 2, 2004

    Roberts v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (2004)

    …not know of mesothelioma specifically. It reinstated liability for CertainTeed, Fibreboard and Flintkote, found no error as to Foster Wheeler and General Electric, and removed Gasket Holding. It upheld the damage awards. Exxon owed a virile…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · July 26, 2023

    Robichaux v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2023)

    …shares of fault of those released parties if their fault is proven at trial. The plaintiffs said the releases covered only asbestosis, were too general, and were inadmissible. The court found the releases authenticated and admissible…

  4. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware · June 23, 2003 · in the opinion

    In re Combustion Engineering (2003)

    …Parties" under the Plan. In 2002 an affiliate of Debtor and indirect subsidiary of ABB sold ABB's structured finance business to certain direct and indirect subsidiaries of the General Electric Company. These purchasers are concerned…

  5. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · June 2, 2004 · in the opinion

    Torrejon v. Mobil Oil Co. (2004)

    …Torrejon was uncertain as to the length of time he was there. • General Electric — worked on boilers and turbines and the heating and cooling system. • Colonial House (a hotel) in Las Vegas — 1959 to early 1960…

  6. Court case · Wisconsin Court of Appeals · May 21, 2002 · in the opinion

    Anderson v. Combustion Engineering, Inc. (2002)

    …I. ¶ 2. Jerold Anderson worked for many years as a machinist for the Wisconsin Electric Power Company at its Oak Creek power plant. There were eight coal-fired boilers at the plant during this time. The…

  7. 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…

  8. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · July 20, 2001 · in the opinion

    Black v. ACandS, Inc. (2001)

    …concluded that the plaintiff in McIntosh was not entitled to a remedy under Section 12 because "the General Assembly has determined that injuries occurring ten years after the product was delivered to a user are not…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · December 2, 2004 · in the opinion

    In re Combustion Engineering, Inc. (2004)

    …Insurance Company, successor to Insurance Company of North America); Pacific Employers Insurance Company; Central National Insurance Company of Omaha (solely with respect to policies issued through its managing general agent, Cravens, Dargan & Company, Pacific Coast), Appellants…

  11. Court case · Ohio Supreme Court · October 14, 1987 · in the opinion

    Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1987)

    …it is important to understand that both alternative liability and market-share liability are exceptions to the general rule that a plaintiff has to prove an injury was caused by the negligence of a particular defendant…

  12. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · February 20, 1998 · in the opinion

    Ruckstuhl v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1998)

    …The "minimum contacts" prong of the test can be broken down into two types of personal jurisdiction, specific and general. A state exercises "specific jurisdiction" over a non-resident defendant when the lawsuit arises from or…

  13. 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…

  14. 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…

  15. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · February 5, 1986 · in the opinion

    Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1986)

    …The purpose of class actions is to conserve "the resources of both the courts and the parties by permitting an issue potentially affecting every \[class member\] to be litigated in an economical fashion." General Telephone Co…

  16. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · August 28, 1995 · in the opinion

    Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1995)

    …s fees to fight asbestos litigation cases." The district court ruled that any well-informed citizen could possess general knowledge about Johns-Manville and that the report from the juror was not prejudicial to the defendants…

  17. Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · November 28, 1978 · in the opinion

    Daniels v. Combustion Engineering, Inc. (1978)

    … and fifth, the legal existence of the first suit. "The general rules above laid down have been held applicable, notwithstanding the fact that one suit is at law and the other in equity. Because a deposition…

  18. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · September 21, 1995 · in the opinion

    Baumgart v. Keene Bldg. Products Corp. (1995)

    …835 (1967). However, we have long recognized an exception to this general rule which acts to toll the running of the limitations period. The discovery rule "provides that where the existence of the injury is not…