77 results for “General Electric”, page 4 of 4
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · May 3, 2004 · in the opinion
Bartel v. John Crane, Inc. (2004)
…§§ 688, et seq., the General Admiralty and Maritime law, and traditional product liability law. ECF No. 1. Lindstrom claims that he contracted this disease as a result of his work-life exposures to asbestos and asbestos…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia · September 28, 2018 · in the opinion
Goodrich v. John Crane, Inc. (2018)
…or videotapes of insulated pipes or systems on ships and insinuating\] that the insulation \[shown\] . . . was asbestos, in general, or amosite asbestos, in particular and that Mr. Goodrich would have been exposed to friable asbestos from. …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · June 23, 1999 · in the opinion
Lambert v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1999)
…we must address two issues. First, we must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether the incident had "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce." Id. (quoting Sisson v. Ruby…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · March 6, 2013 · in the opinion
Landry v. Avondale Industries, Inc. (2013)
…Landry's and Mr. Grisaffe's testimony are uncontradicted. Historically, latent disease cases in general and asbestos in particular, such as this one, the plaintiff has an extraordinary challenge of gathering evidence dating back 30 to…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia · April 27, 2020 · in the opinion
Mullinex v. John Crane, Inc. (2020)
…§ 1333(1) and 46 U.S.C. § 30101 and the general admiralty and maritime law of the United States." ECF No. 1-4 ¶ 7. JCI does not seek to dismiss any particular claim in the Amended…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · June 4, 2009 · in the opinion
Werts v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2009)
…tested, (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review, (3) whether there is a known or potential rate of error, and (4) whether the methodology has gained general acceptance." Daubert at syllabus; see, also, Miller…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida · April 27, 2022 · in the opinion
Israel v. John Crane, Inc. (2022)
…932 F.2d 413, 415 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that a cause of action under general maritime law "accrues when a plaintiff has had a reasonable opportunity to discover his injury, its cause, and the link…
-
Court case · Georgia Supreme Court · November 8, 2004 · in the opinion
John Crane, Inc. v. Jones (2004)
…1781. Once the term "substantial factor" is employed in the general negligence law [\826] vocabulary, there is the danger that it will be used not only to describe a general approach to the legal cause issue…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi · September 13, 2022 · in the opinion
Webb v. 3M Company (2022)
…Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000). But unlike the general removal statute, the Court must broadly construe the federal officer removal statute in favor of a federal forum. Williams v. Lockheed Martin Corp.…
-
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…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · February 1, 2010 · in the opinion
Crane v. Linkus (2010)
…appellee's motion and entered judgment in the amount requested. Appellant noted an appeal to this Court. General Background Before addressing the causation issue in this case, it may be helpful to place it into context…
-
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…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · February 13, 2004 · in the opinion
Smalls v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (2004)
…Trial, 12/4/01, at 32. Appellant argues that the opinion was inadmissible because it had no basis in fact nor general acceptance in the scientific community. We disagree. ¶ 11 Again, we observe that the admission…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · March 31, 2005 · in the opinion
Jurich v. John Crane, Inc. (2005)
…diseases: mesothelioma (cancer affecting the lining of the lung), lung cancer (which invades the lung's airways), asbestosis, and general pleural effusions or fibrosis. See Appellee's App. p. 563 (article by expert witness Arnold Brody…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia · August 24, 2018 · in the opinion
Goodrich v. John Crane, Inc. (2018)
…not relevant evidence of the "state of the art." JCI argues that evidence of the Navy's knowledge is a "critical component" of the general knowledge and state of the art literature concerning asbestos health hazards…
-
Court case · Georgia Court of Appeals · October 29, 2019 · in the opinion
Davis v. John Crane, Inc. (2019)
…F.2d 1480, 1481 (11th Cir. 1985). This rule coincides with the general requirement that a plaintiff establish proximate causation as a necessary element of a tort claim. See id. at 610 (2), 548 S.E…