10 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · New Jersey Superior Court · March 8, 1985 · in the opinion
Devlin v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1985)
… 26, provides that the general rules against claim splitting are rendered inapplicable when: (b) The court in the first action has expressly reserved the plaintiff's right to maintain the second action or; (f) it is…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · February 28, 1986 · in the opinion
Joyce v. AC and S., Inc. (1986)
No ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed outside of the employment shall be compensable, except: (1) When it follows as an incident of occupational disease as defined in this title; or…
-
Court case · Florida Supreme Court · March 17, 1988 · in the opinion
Celotex Corp. v. Meehan (1988)
…allow an expansion of a statute of limitations period when the change is made before the cause of action is barred by the prior statutory limitation period. Corbett v. General Engineering & Machinery Co., 160 Fla. 879…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · November 12, 1990 · in the opinion
Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1990)
…to concurrently produce a single injury, the plaintiff may recover from the defendant for the entire injury. Shipp v. General Motors Corporation, 750 F.2d 418, 425-26 (5th Cir.1985). The plaintiff need only show…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 23, 1984 · in the opinion
Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984)
…a "less desirable longshoreman" in the future. Id. at 668. Bonura is inapposite to the case at bar. Bonura was decided under general maritime law, not Louisiana law. Furthermore, the instant record does not support an…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · June 3, 1985 · in the opinion
Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)
…Court has expressly held, in Turner v. General Motors Corporation,\[36\] that, although evidence of the expectations of the ordinary consumer and the care of a prudent manufacturer may be introduced at trial, "henceforth in the…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · October 28, 1981 · in the opinion
Fearson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)
…The defendants' first argument is that plaintiff's "survival" claim is time-barred under the law of the District of Columbia, which provides that the general period of limitations is three years. See D.C.Code …
-
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…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 3, 1982 · in the opinion
Staiano v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1982)
…Pa.R.App.P. 301(a). Appellants acknowledge the general rule that an issue not argued below may not be argued on appeal, but nevertheless assert that their argument is not waived. They say: [\293] The…
-
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…