48 results for “General Electric”, page 2 of 3
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · August 17, 2018 · in the opinion
Grimes v. AT&T Corp. (2018)
…III, Caruso Pope Edell Picini, P.C. & RICHARD DOMINICK PICINI, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & MICHAEL A. TANENBAUM…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · July 25, 2016 · in the opinion
Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016)
…to Square D for use in the manufacture or assembly of molded or bonded component parts in certain electrical equipment products which may or may not have contained asbestos:... Union Carbide Corporation \[and\] General Electric.... (Id…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · January 9, 2017 · in the opinion
Grimes v. AT&T Corp. (2017)
…LLP. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP. IMO…
-
Court case · Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · March 16, 2017 · in the opinion
Dias v. Fisher Controls Int'l (In re Hawaii State Asbestos Cases, 2017)
…INC., individually and as successor by merger to THE NASH ENGINEERING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, 10) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., a New York corporation, 11) INGERSOLL RAND CO., individually and as successor-in-interest to ALDRICH…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 21, 2011 · in the opinion
Linster v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2011)
…Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., Dana Corporation, Durabla, Durametallic Corporation, Foster Wheeler Corporation, Garlock Inc., General Electric Company, General Refractories, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Goulds Pumps, Inc., Green, Tweed & Company, Hajoca Plumbing Supply Company, Hercules Chemical Co.…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · February 14, 2023 · in the opinion
Korol v. Aurora Pump Company (2023)
…AS SUCCESSOR TO BW/IP INTERNATIONAL, INC. SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO BYRON JACKSON PUMP COMPANY); GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY (SUED INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO DURABLA MANUFACTURING); GREEN, TWEED AND CO.,…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · August 2, 2012 · in the opinion
Faddish v. Buffalo Pumps (2012)
…U.S. at 534, 115 S.Ct. 1043; Reynolds v. General Electric Co., 2012 WL 2835500 (E.D.Pa.2012). On the other hand, if the worker's exposure was primarily land based, then, even if…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 25, 2009 · in the opinion
Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009)
…specifications does not deprive them of the component parts defense. In Artiglio v. General Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 830 \[71 Cal.Rptr.2d 817\], the defendant manufactured silicone in accordance with "particular specifications…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut · February 19, 2015 · in the opinion
Bray v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (2015)
…24 (Crane); 84:6-24 (same). He was able to recall only the brands Westinghouse and General Electric without prompting. Choate was prompted to describe certain elements of the products he recalled, such as their label…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · March 13, 2012 · in the opinion
Rabovsky v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2012)
…the order of November 1, 2011, denied Pennsylvania Electric's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. As a general rule, a magistrate judge cannot "determine" a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See 28 U.S…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 11, 2008 · in the opinion
Norris v. Crane Company (2008)
…the procedural matters. Therefore, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND\[2\] General Knowledge of Asbestos Hazards By 1930, it was well established in the medical and scientific communities that breathing asbestos fibers caused asbestosis, a scarring…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky · November 17, 2015 · in the opinion
Stallings v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation (2015)
…526 U.S. 137, 147-49 (1999) (applying Daubert's general principles to the expert matters discussed in Rule 702). First, the Court must determine "whether the experts' testimony reflects \scientific knowledge,' whether their findings are…
-
Trade catalog or brochure · 1936
Crane Co.: Valves, Fittings, Pipe and Fabricated Piping, Catalog No. 52 (1936)
Crane Co. general catalog No. 52, copyright May 1936, of about 760 pages listing brass, iron and steel valves, cocks, fittings, unions, pipe, fabricated piping, steam specialties and engineering data. It describes Cranite, an asbestos-composition…
-
Trade catalog or brochure · 1952
Crane Co.: Valves, Fittings, Pipe, Fabricated Piping, Catalog No. 53 (1952)
Crane Co. general catalog No. 53, copyright 1952, covering brass, iron and steel valves, fittings, pipe, fabricated piping, steam specialties, hangers and engineering data, with an opening tour of Crane's plants. Asbestos items include Cranite…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · May 19, 2014
Horrie v. AW Chesterton Company (2014)
…as contracts or Navy warning requirements, that the government controlled the warnings and that this conflicted with state law. Crane's general affidavits did not do so. Failure to Warn; Government Contractor Defense and Removal; Venue…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii · February 7, 2014
Cabasug v. Crane Company (2014)
…court found no evidence that Emhart's distillers contained asbestos or that Emhart supplied asbestos replacement parts, since the plaintiffs relied on general expert statements about what manufacturers typically did. Griscom-Russell had dissolved in 1962…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia · December 27, 2013
Cabasug v. Crane Company (2013)
…law, the court found no evidence that Emhart's distillers contained asbestos components or that Emhart supplied asbestos replacement parts, and the expert's statements were too general. The Griscom-Russell company dissolved in 1962, before…
-
Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · March 2, 2012
John Crane, Inc. v. Hardick (2012)
…whether under DOHSA, the Jones Act, or general maritime law, and a Navy sailor who contributed to the function of vessels and had a substantial connection to them is a seaman. Arguments not briefed under Rule…
-
Court case · Tennessee Supreme Court · January 4, 2021 · in the opinion
Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2021)
There the canon avoids not contradiction but the superfluity of a specific provision that is swallowed by the general one, "violat\[ing\] the cardinal rule that, if possible, effect shall be given to every clause and…
-
Court case · Massachusetts Appeals Court · February 14, 2013 · in the opinion
Whiting v. CBS Corporation (2013)
…by asbestos products manufactured or later supplied by the defendants, and have shown that the plaintiff \has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of \[her\] case.' Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706…