50 results for “General Electric”, page 3 of 3
-
Court case · New York Court of Appeals · October 29, 1981 · in the opinion
Matter of Steinhardt v. JohnsManville Corp. (1981)
…such claims are diligently and expeditiously pursued. An exception to the general period of limitation rule is required when the pathological effect of an injury occurs without perceptible trauma, and the victim is blamelessly ignorant of…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 14, 1994 · in the opinion
Coates v. AC and S, Inc. (1994)
…599 So.2d at 1062 n. 13. \[10\] Johnstone was a case under the general maritime law which adopted Louisiana law as the law of the adjacent state. \[11\] Defendants contend that the use of OSHA…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · February 5, 1986 · in the opinion
Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1986)
…The purpose of class actions is to conserve "the resources of both the courts and the parties by permitting an issue potentially affecting every \[class member\] to be litigated in an economical fashion." General Telephone Co…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi · November 21, 1980 · in the opinion
McCarty v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1980)
…1969) the Court stated: "Because this is a diversity case, the law of the state where the district court sat controls questions [\339] of res judicata and estoppel. See also Aerojet-General Aviation Corp. v. Askew…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · July 15, 1981 · in the opinion
Tysenn v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1981)
…to which the claimant is exposed by reason of his employment, and (2) which are peculiar to the industry or occupation, and (3) which are not common to the general population. § 1208(n). In Utter v…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · October 5, 1981 · in the opinion
White v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1981)
…admiralty jurisdiction and rejected claims under the Extension of Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 740, or the general maritime law, 28 U.S.C. § 1333, because the alleged injuries bore no reasonable relationship to traditional…
-
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 · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · August 8, 1991 · in the opinion
Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (1991)
…On appeal from the judgment subsequently entered, OCF offers four general challenges: (1) the district court erred in denying its initial motion for a directed verdict and later motion to dismiss the complaint; (2) the district…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · March 18, 1987 · in the opinion
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. US (1987)
…a trail longer and broader than Judge Gignoux's. To understand the First Circuit's approach to the matter, it will be useful to refer briefly to the general structure of LHWCA. Complementing the Jones Act…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · September 21, 1995 · in the opinion
Baumgart v. Keene Bldg. Products Corp. (1995)
…835 (1967). However, we have long recognized an exception to this general rule which acts to toll the running of the limitations period. The discovery rule "provides that where the existence of the injury is not…