9 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 17, 2009 · in the opinion
Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2009)
…retain an expert in every finished product manufacturer's line of business and second-guess the finished product manufacturer whenever any of its employees received any information about any potential problems.'" (Artiglio v. General Electric Co.
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 25, 2009 · in the opinion
Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2009)
…retain an expert in every finished product manufacturer's line of business and second-guess the finished product manufacturer whenever any of its employees received any information about any potential problems.'" (Artiglio v. General Electric Co.
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 25, 2009 · in the opinion
Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. Inc. (2009)
…specifications does not deprive them of the component parts defense. In Artiglio v. General Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 830 \[71 Cal.Rptr.2d 817\], the defendant manufactured silicone in accordance with "particular specifications…
-
Court case · Alabama Supreme Court · December 16, 2011 · in the opinion
Bradberry v. Carrier Corporation ET AL. (2011)
\[8\] An exception to the general rule that the automatic stay does not apply to solvent codefendants has been recognized in certain "unusual circumstances" that are not present in this case. See A.H. Robbins Co…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · October 1, 2010 · in the opinion
Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2010)
…125-8). Defendant asserts that this is a general, speculative statement and is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. While it is true that Plaintiffs' expert does not directly controvert Defendant's expert…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · October 8, 2010 · in the opinion
Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2010)
…125-8). Defendant asserts that this is a general, speculative statement and is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. While it is true that Plaintiffs' expert does not directly controvert Defendant's expert…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 3, 2010 · in the opinion
Davis v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2010)
…user defense, the ordinary users would have been Davis's employers, not Davis. As support, appellants cite Maneely v. General Motors Corp. (9th Cir. 1997) 108 F.3d 1176. In Maneely, applying California law, the court…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 24, 2008 · in the opinion
Cunningham v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2008)
…booster pumps, the bilge pumps, and fire and flushing pumps. Cunningham would have had technical manuals for such products available. In general, the manufacturers would provide their equipment to the shipyard, which would assemble, install, and…
-
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…