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

Search

5 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut · July 15, 2009

    Murphy v. General Electric Company (2009)

    …court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court, holding that General Electric and Buffalo Pumps could remove the case under the federal officer removal statute. A defendant can remove under 28 U.S.C. …

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut · July 28, 2009

    Kotecki v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2009)

    …motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court because Buffalo Pumps and General Electric showed a colorable federal officer (military contractor) defense. A defendant may remove under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut · November 13, 2007

    Contois v. Able Industries Inc. (2007)

    The court denied the executrix's motion to remand, holding that Buffalo Pumps' removal was timely and that Buffalo Pumps and General Electric satisfied federal officer removal requirements, so the case stays in federal court. A…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut · October 27, 2008

    Carroll v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2008)

    …Carrolls' motion to remand, holding that defendants Viad, General Electric and Buffalo Pumps properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute. A defendant may remove under the federal officer statute, 28 U.S.C. …

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut · September 18, 2008 · in the opinion

    Pantalone v. Aurora Pump Co. (2008)

    …and which were purportedly critical to the removal determination), Buffalo Pumps instead proffered its factual basis for removal in broad, general terms. According to the notice, Buffalo Pumps had satisfied the statutory requirements for removal during…