11 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · Michigan Court of Appeals · January 11, 2007 · in the opinion
Chapin v. A & L Parts, Inc. (2007)
…125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993),\[2\] and its progeny, Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 470 Mich. 749, 685 N.W.2d 391 (2004), General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S.Ct. 512…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · August 24, 2009 · in the opinion
General Motors Corporation v. Grenier (2009)
…deprived the trial judge of the opportunity to deal with the problem when it arose. Such inaction is deemed a waiver of any resulting error for appellate purposes. (Emphasis added.); Delaware Electric Coop., Inc. v. Duphily…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · February 4, 2009
General Motors Corporation v. Grenier (2009)
The Delaware Supreme Court remanded to the motion judge to reconsider the admissibility of the plaintiffs' general causation experts (Drs. Dodson and Lemen) because his factual findings misstated the record, leaving GM and Ford's challenge…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 16, 2010 · in the opinion
Teruel-Armstrong v. Borg-Warner Morsetec, Inc. (2010)
Ford and General Motors could have sought to enforce compliance with their deposition subpoena or sought some assurance from plaintiffs' counsel that the documents requested in the subpoena would be produced at the deposition. It appears…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 10, 2006
Berger v. Amchem Prods. (2006)
The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motions (joined by Ford and General Motors) to preclude evidence that brake and clutch dust causes asbestos disease, to dismiss the complaints, and for a Frye hearing, so the plaintiffs (Berger…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · February 7, 2005
Clare v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc. (2005)
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Saberhagen Holdings and General Motors, holding that the estate's claims over Clifford Clare's mesothelioma death were time-barred, and the estate lost. Under Washington's discovery…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · October 24, 2002
Vaughn v. Ford Motor Co. (2002)
The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing judgment for Ford, General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, Allied Signal, Borg-Warner and Uniroyal, holding the exclusion of plaintiff's experts was an abuse of discretion but harmless because…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · July 31, 2002
In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (2002)
Tens of thousands of people sued in state courts across the country, claiming that asbestos in friction products such as brake pads gave them or their relatives mesothelioma, lung, laryngeal or esophageal cancer, or asbestosis. They sued makers and…
-
Court case · North Dakota Supreme Court · December 22, 1999
Black v. Abex Corp. (1999)
…Court affirmed summary judgment for Allied-Signal, Borg-Warner, Chrysler and General Motors, dismissing Rochelle Black's market share and alternative liability claims. Even assuming market share liability were recognized, a plaintiff must present admissible evidence…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 13, 2003
Polito v. Burns Int'l Services Corp. (Matter of Asbestos Litig., 2003)
…repaired over a number of years. The remaining defendants were Burns International (formerly Borg-Warner), DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors, all involved in making or distributing brake products. Before trial, they moved to exclude certain evidence…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 30, 2010
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2010)
…causation testimony on scientific theories the parties never raised and no expert supported, and extrapolation from higher to lower doses and the absence of supporting epidemiology do not by themselves defeat general acceptance. Causation; Expert Testimony…