12 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · December 23, 1981 · in the opinion
Petes v. Hayes (1981)
…was phrased "Does plaintiff, Alton Petes, suffer from disability or disease which specifically results from the inhalation of asbestos particles ..." (Emphasis added.) "Specifically" was not defined in the general charge. In its everyday usage, "specifically" is…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee · January 9, 1984 · in the opinion
Johnson County, Tenn. v. US Gypsum Co. (1984)
While it is true that contractors who perform construction work for the state operated universities are not protected by general statutes of limitation, see Dunn v. W.F. Jameson and Sons, Inc., 569 S.W.2d…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · October 4, 2011
Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. (2011)
…at issue, and circumstantial evidence that a manufacturer bought the supplier's asbestos can create a fact question on exposure. A raw-asbestos supplier also owes the general duty of reasonable care. Causation; Product Identification; Expert…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · September 29, 1981 · in the opinion
Bunker v. National Gypsum Co. (1981)
…0 \ \ 0-9 \ 346 \ 89.6 \ 10.4 \ 36 \ 0 \ 0 \ \ ----------\ -------\ --------\ ----------\ ------\ ------\ ------\ \ Total \ 1,117 \ 51.5 \ 48.5 \ 366 \ 126 \ 50 \ The general purpose of a statute of limitations is to encourage prompt resolution of claims…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · July 7, 1993 · in the opinion
Behrendt v. GAF Corp. (1993)
…fishing, woodworking. Mr. Behrendt's pain symptoms eventually led to a diagnosis of mesothelioma in December 1990. He was taken to the Emergency Room at Community General Osteopathic Hospital, Harrisburg, on December 23, 1990 with a…
-
Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · October 26, 1982 · in the opinion
Bunker v. National Gypsum Co. (1982)
…validity of that limitation, this Court held: "We recognize the general rule that the legislature is the primary judge as to whether the time allowed by a statute of limitations is reasonable. Although the determination of…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit · July 12, 1985 · in the opinion
Lee v. Celotex Corp. (1985)
…through 1976 contained asbestos. However, in paragraph 2 of the general objections to those interrogatories, National Gypsum states that it answers those interrogatories "with reference to products that may have been used to insulate pipes, boilers…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · May 7, 1992 · in the opinion
Sealover v. Carey Canada (1992)
…112 S.Ct. 1671, 118 L.Ed.2d 391 (New Rule 238 withstands constitutional challenges on due process and equal protection grounds.); Leonard v. General Motors Corp., Civil No. 88-2380, slip op. at 5 (E…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · December 29, 1988 · in the opinion
Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1988)
…accrued to him not later than 1980. Furthermore, it should be noted that when the release was signed the Pecorinos did think about any exclusions or exceptions from the general, full and final release [\570] when…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Kansas · May 2, 1991 · in the opinion
Harding v. Proko Industries, Inc. (1991)
…find Kansas or Texas law to be applicable to the plaintiff's claims. Section 6(2) of the Second Restatement identifies seven general considerations which are relevant to the resolution of a given conflict of laws…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · December 13, 2014 · in the opinion
Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. (2014)
…to the trial court, Dr. Mark's testimony simply "does not carry the day" because it is of a general nature, and because plaintiffs did not have any evidence of specific causation, the court could not…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of New York · August 15, 2012 · in the opinion
Garner v. Ngc Bodily Injury Trust (2012)
…injuries did not manifest within three years of exposure, and thus, would have otherwise been barred. See Jensen v. General Elec. Co., 82 N.Y.2d 77, 84 (1993). The statute provides: the three year period…