7 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · May 28, 2008
Williams v. American Optical Corporation (2008)
A group of Florida plaintiffs, including a personal representative for Wayne Smith, sued American Optical and other companies for asbestosis, which is lung disease and pleural thickening from asbestos exposure. They filed suit before Florida's 2005…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · March 12, 2019
MacLachlan v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (2019)
…furnace, where he wore protective coats and mittens he believed were made by American Optical. He also claimed exposure to a General Electric steam turbine aboard the USS Kennedy. American Optical moved for summary judgment. It…
-
Court case · Washington Supreme Court · August 9, 2012 · in the opinion
Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (2012)
…Delaware corporation, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; General Electric Company; Goulds Pumps (IPG), Inc.; and Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendants. No. 85535…
-
Court case · Florida Supreme Court · July 8, 2011 · in the opinion
American Optical Corporation v. Spiewak (2011)
…does not accrue, for limitations purposes, until the injured party discovers or has a "duty to discover the act constituting an invasion of his legal rights." Creviston v. General Motors Corp., 225 So. 2d 331, 334 …
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · December 23, 1981 · in the opinion
Petes v. Hayes (1981)
…was phrased "Does plaintiff, Alton Petes, suffer from disability or disease which specifically results from the inhalation of asbestos particles ..." (Emphasis added.) "Specifically" was not defined in the general charge. In its everyday usage, "specifically" is…
-
Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · September 30, 2013
Cary v. American Optical Corporation (2013)
…Watts moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Cary conceded there was no general jurisdiction but argued for specific jurisdiction and asked for more discovery. The court found it unclear whether Watts had purposely directed…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · December 14, 2010 · in the opinion
Macias v. Mine Safety Appliances Co. (2010)
…Macias acknowledges that Simonetta and Braaten "did announce a general rule that manufacturers have no duty to warn of dangers of a product that the manufacturer did not make\[,\]" but he argues that "\[t\]he specific…