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

Search

32 results for “General Electric”, page 2 of 2

  1. 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…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · May 27, 2020 · in the opinion

    Toy v. Honeywell Int'l (In re Toy Asbestos Litigation, 2020)

    …Court orders otherwise, all case deadlines (other than the trial date, which will be vacated consistent with General Order No. 72-3) remain in effect. IT IS SO ORDERED. \[1\] For purposes of this order, "Defendant…

  3. Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · July 22, 2019 · in the opinion

    Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2019)

    …the general duty of care includes a duty to warn when the manufacturer "knows or has reason to know" that its product "is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 19, 2021 · in the opinion

    Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Asbestos, 2021)

    …es\] the \[expert's\] reasoning or methodology, using as appropriate such criteria as testability, publication in peer reviewed literature, and general acceptance." Id. at 564. III. DISCUSSION Both Plaintiffs and Defendant Armstrong failed to comply with…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · August 7, 2014 · in the opinion

    Logan v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (2014)

    …477 U.S. at 257. The moving defendants principally challenge the plaintiffs' evidence of exposure and causation as a general matter without distinguishing between the causes of action. In a case where the plaintiff developed asbestosis…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · September 28, 2005 · in the opinion

    Lindstrom v. AC Product Liability Trust (2005)

    …a plaintiff is no longer required to show substantial exposure. The Stark opinion and general logic may suggest that, where an expert witness can testify unequivocally that a defendant's product was the source of the…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · April 29, 2022 · in the opinion

    Deem v. William Powell Co. (2022)

    …1434 (1997), noted that "twice the Supreme Court has been presented with federal statute of limitations language materially identical to that in the general maritime statute of limitations, and twice the Supreme Court has held that…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 31, 2021 · in the opinion

    Toy v. Warren Pumps (In re Asbestos, 2021)

    …To ensure reliability, the Court "assess\[es\] the \[expert's\] reasoning or methodology, using as appropriate such criteria as testability, publication in peer reviewed literature, and general acceptance." Id. at 564. III. DISCUSSION A. Motion to…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · September 11, 2017 · in the opinion

    MacCormack v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017)

    …911 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987) (reasoning that a worsening of a condition did not justify a subsequent new action as "\[t\]he general rule is, of course, that a plaintiff the "identity of issues" factor. 8…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · January 21, 2016 · in the opinion

    Holzworth v. Alfa Laval Inc. (2016)

    …in causing the injury he suffered." See Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Tr., 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2005) (general maritime law); In re Joint E. & S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., No. 92 Civ…

  11. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 2, 2009 · in the opinion

    Wangen v. Gardner Denver, Inc. (2009)

    …d\] that Soco West, Inc. is not subject to jurisdiction in the State of Washington." Plant Insulation Company presented a declaration from its general counsel. Based upon his personal knowledge, he averred that the company was…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · January 30, 2018 · in the opinion

    MacCormack v. Ingersoll-Rand Company (2018)

    …App. Ct. 1987) (reasoning that a worsening of a condition did not justify a subsequent new action as "\[t\]he general rule is, of course, that a plaintiff is entitled to one recovery in a personal…