9 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · March 27, 1989 · in the opinion
Dube v. Pittsburgh Corning (1989)
…768 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir.1985) (relying in part on statute authorizing Surgeon General to release test data "at such times and to such extent as \[he\] may determine to be [\799] in the public…
-
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 · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · April 14, 1995 · in the opinion
Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1995)
…the petit jury venire. The Supreme Court announced a general rule that "\[t\]he denial or impairment of the right \[to exercise peremptory challenges\] is reversible error without a showing of prejudice." Swain, 380 U.S…
-
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 · Pennsylvania Superior Court · January 25, 1991 · in the opinion
Moran v. G. & WH Corson, Inc. (1991)
…with Bob Hinks. Q. About that knowledge? A. A general discussion, a light general thing that I had read about in the paper or, you know, not actually getting into detail. Q. You read about what…
-
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. 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 · 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…