6 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · May 5, 2016
Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016)
Charles Arbogast, Jr., and his wife Barbara sued twenty-seven companies, alleging that as manufacturers or distributors of various products they exposed him to asbestos and caused his mesothelioma. The complaint raised strict liability, negligence,…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · July 3, 2019 · in the opinion
Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (2019)
…Sheppard was an electrician who performed work at LRHS in 1970-71, before Busch worked at LRHS. Sheppard did not know Busch personally and testified only as a "general product identification witness."\[15\] In a vein…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · July 17, 2017 · in the opinion
Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (2017)
…702(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, nor do they satisfy the Daubert factors, including "testability," "peer review," and "general acceptance" within the "relevant scientific community," Bresler, 855 F.3d at 195. On the contrary…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · July 6, 2018 · in the opinion
Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. v. Rossello (2018)
…defendants; January 4, 2016 was the deadline for the plaintiff to name his "most likely to use" general product identification fact witnesses from the original fact witness list who have been previously deposed; January 18, 2016…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 26, 2018 · in the opinion
Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (2018)
…support a jury conclusion that W&G was the primary insulation contractor working at LRHS. This is not a case in which evidence was presented showing the general presence of asbestos-containing products at LRHS. Accordingly…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · August 10, 2018 · in the opinion
Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (2018)
…support a jury conclusion that W&G was the primary insulation contractor working at LRHS. This is not a case in which evidence was presented showing the general presence of asbestos-containing products at LRHS. Accordingly…