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

Search

24 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 2

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit · January 31, 1990

    Kraciun v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1990)

    …Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1953 onward (except Navy 1954-1958); service crew, general maintenance worker and electrical maintenance worker E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1948-1985; maintenance person…

  2. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · March 6, 1981 · in the opinion

    Locke v. Johns-Manville (1981)

    …the defendants in the November 1978 order appealed from. The record shows that since approximately 1948 plaintiff had been employed as an industrial electrician by various contractors at sites in Virginia, New York and North Carolina…

  3. 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…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · January 30, 1986 · in the opinion

    Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (1986)

    …a given industry. They are often set forth in some type of code, such as a building code or electrical code, or they may be adopted by the trade organization of a given industry. State of…

  5. Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · October 25, 1983 · in the opinion

    Froud v. Celotex Corp. (1983)

    …2d 199, 214-15, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 1595-96 (Black, J., dissenting); General Dynamics Corp., Electric Boat Division, v. Benefits Review Board (2d Cir.1977), 565 F.2d 208, 212; Williams v. Ray (1978), 146…

  6. Court case · North Carolina Supreme Court · November 5, 1985 · in the opinion

    Wilder v. Amatex Corp. (1985)

    …E.2d 281 (1972); Galligan v. Chapel Hill, 276 N.C. 172, 171 S.E.2d 427 (1970); Domestic Electric Service Co., Inc. v. Rocky Mount, 20 N.C.App. 347, 201 S.E.2d 508…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia · July 19, 1984 · in the opinion

    Joyce v. AC & s., Inc. (1984)

    …asbestos insulation materials. Plaintiff, an industrial electrician who had worked with asbestos insulation from 1948 to 1972, claimed that inhalation of asbestos fibers and dust during that period had caused him to develop mesothelioma, a cancerous…

  8. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · April 19, 1982 · in the opinion

    Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1982)

    …Rather, defendants state, the cost "will be borne by the public at large and reflected in a general, across the board increase in premiums to compensate for unanticipated risks." There is some truth in this assertion…

  9. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 10, 1992 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1992)

    Castleman also testified that some general-knowledge encyclopedias included notes on asbestosis as early as 1939 or 1940. The Court of Special Appeals reviewed this evidence and held that "\[a\] jury ... could reasonably infer that Porter…

  10. 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…

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · November 28, 1988 · in the opinion

    Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1988)

    …113 (3d Cir.1985) (evidence of general use of Pittsburgh Corning's Unibestos at job site was sufficient to allow jury to find Pittsburgh Corning to be a factor in causing the plaintiff's injury). \[13…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 26, 1982 · in the opinion

    Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …Borel, we conclude that Borel, while conclusive as to the general matter of a duty to warn on the part of manufacturers of asbestos-containing insulation products, is ultimately ambiguous as to certain key issues. As…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · January 14, 1980 · in the opinion

    Mooney v. Fibreboard Corp. (1980)

    …discretion to determine when it should be applied. The general rule should be that in cases where a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action or where, either for the reasons discussed above or…

  15. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · August 1, 1989 · in the opinion

    Mauro v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1989)

    …in the evaluation of the damage claim against the defendant. In this way, to the extent that men can achieve justice through general rules, a just balance of the warring interests is accomplished. \[Citations omitted\]. Cf…

  16. 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…

  17. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · December 22, 1989 · in the opinion

    Sholtis v. American Cyanamid Co. (1989)

    …theory of non-identification liability is acceptable in New Jersey. \[9\] The court "reserve\[d\] decision on the general appropriateness of including products with different degrees of risk in a market-share analysis." 116 N.J…

  18. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · May 10, 1988 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. US (1988)

    …the LHWCA; and (2) under the LHWCA, Eagle-Picher need not satisfy the general admiralty jurisdiction requirement that the underlying wrong had a significant relationship (i.e., a nexus) to a traditional maritime activity. Executive Jet…

  19. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · April 13, 1989 · in the opinion

    Kaiser v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1989)

    …late 1985 or early 1986 that he suffered from asbestosis. The Kaisers filed this lawsuit seeking general and special damages for Kaiser's asbestos-related injuries on August 15, 1986. III. All parties accept in their…

  20. 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 …