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

Search

42 results for “General Electric”, page 2 of 3

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · December 4, 1992 · in the opinion

    In re Joint E. & So. Dist. Asbestos Litigation (1992)

    …Plan-related documents. We therefore consider whether the changes were authorized by the more general reserved power of the Bankruptcy Court to modify the Plan "to the full extent permitted by the Code." Plan § 10.1…

  2. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · November 30, 1990 · in the opinion

    In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit. (1990)

    …Unliquidated Claims on File $4.794 billion Unpaid Settlements .434 billion 47,000 Future Claims 1.840 billion \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Total $7.068 billion\[3\] (1) The Trust, as movant, represented by its General Counsel, David T. Austern…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · May 24, 1983 · in the opinion

    Wedgeworth v. Fibreboard Corp. (1983)

    …forum. Defendants have not shown that any hardship complained of is the result of proceeding to trial now. Nor is there a showing that the difficulties inherent in the general situation, including potential judicial inefficiency, constitute…

  4. Film · Films

    No Smoking Please

    …does not smoke, even though he's also exposed to asbestos, is at no greater risk of developing lung cancer than any nonsmoker in the general population. If you are exposed to asbestos, you increase your…

  5. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · June 10, 1986 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …Inc., Rapid American, Uni-Royal, Carolina Asbestos Co., J. Franklin Burke General Asbestos Co., Ruberoid Company, Keaseey Mattison Co., Asten Hill Manufacturing Co. Argued December 17, 1985. Filed June 10, 1986. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. [\60…

  6. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 30, 1984 · in the opinion

    In re Davis (1984)

    …672 F.2d 564 (5th Cir.1982). In general, the petitioner seeking such an order must show that no other adequate means exists to attain the requested relief and that his right to issuance of the…

  7. Court case · Texas Supreme Court · November 30, 2000 · in the opinion

    Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp. (2000)

    …American argues that Pustejovsky's lack of knowledge of the scope of his damages from his exposure to asbestos does not affect the accrual of his cause of action. Following these general rules, Rapid American contends…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · November 12, 1990 · in the opinion

    Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1990)

    …to concurrently produce a single injury, the plaintiff may recover from the defendant for the entire injury. Shipp v. General Motors Corporation, 750 F.2d 418, 425-26 (5th Cir.1985). The plaintiff need only show…

  9. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · May 9, 1991 · in the opinion

    Wehmeier v. Unr Industries, Inc. (1991)

    …OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Solomon stated it was his general impression that the level of asbestos used at UNARCO's Bloomington plant was not safe. Solomon stated he never saw chrysotile asbestos ground…

  10. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · July 31, 1986 · in the opinion

    Fischer v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …after which defendant Bell withdrew its appeal. In addition to its general argument that the case before us is one of great public importance, Johns-Manville's petition urges that the Appellate Division's determination runs…

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · February 6, 1992 · in the opinion

    Ocasek v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Comp. Fund (1992)

    …both Illinois and federal statutes. Neither, however, is controlling here. Although, as a general matter, the Illinois Code provides that "\[e\]very judgment shall bear interest thereon ...," Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. [\154] 110, para. 12-109…

  12. Film · Films

    Working with Asbestos

    …avoid exposing others to airborne dust. The industry's concern extends outside its plants. Although there is no firm evidence of any health hazard to the general public from asbestos, protective measures have been taken by…

  13. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · January 27, 1984 · in the opinion

    Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)

    …June 27, 1978 is broad in its scope and is to be liberally construed,\[3\] but is not without its limitations. In its general provision it states: Courts of record, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have…

  14. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 2, 1982 · in the opinion

    Baptist v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (1982)

    …examination, and his exclusive reliance on the Selikoff study. The latter study concluded that among 17,800 members of the general public 17.5 cases of death from pancreatic cancer could be expected. Among asbestos workers…

  15. Court case · New York Court of Appeals · October 29, 1981 · in the opinion

    Matter of Steinhardt v. JohnsManville Corp. (1981)

    …such claims are diligently and expeditiously pursued. An exception to the general period of limitation rule is required when the pathological effect of an injury occurs without perceptible trauma, and the victim is blamelessly ignorant of…

  16. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York · June 30, 2016 · in the opinion

    In re Johns-Manville Corp. (2016)

    …Debtors including, without limitation, all obligations or liabilities for compensatory damages (such as loss of consortium, wrongful death, survivorship, proximate, consequential, general and special damages) and punitive damages. . . . Graphic's Mot. Ex. N, at 55. There…

  17. Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 27, 2021 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. JM Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021)

    …litigant to rely on abstract generalities, but must instruct in specific terms that relate the party's [\1088] theory to the particular case." (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572 \[34 Cal…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · September 11, 1986 · in the opinion

    Vigiolto v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …Applicable Law. We begin with the proposition that in a tort action, as a general rule, proof that a [\1457] specific defendant caused the plaintiff's harm is a prerequisite to that defendant's liability to…

  19. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · October 5, 1981 · in the opinion

    White v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1981)

    …admiralty jurisdiction and rejected claims under the Extension of Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 740, or the general maritime law, 28 U.S.C. § 1333, because the alleged injuries bore no reasonable relationship to traditional…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut · June 7, 1984 · in the opinion

    Bauer v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)

    …the plaintiff has cited a number of cases stating the general rule regarding retroactive application of statutes of limitation: statutes of limitation are ordinarily considered procedural and are retroactively applied to actions pending on or brought…