32 results for “General Electric”, page 2 of 2
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · October 28, 1981 · in the opinion
Fearson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)
…The defendants' first argument is that plaintiff's "survival" claim is time-barred under the law of the District of Columbia, which provides that the general period of limitations is three years. See D.C.Code …
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · June 30, 1992 · in the opinion
O'banion v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1992)
…Moore, 648 P.2d 21, 23-24 (Okla.1982); Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353, 1362-63 (Okla.1974) (adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A in products liability actions). \[6\] The court…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit · July 30, 1982 · in the opinion
Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)
…first action may expressly reserve plaintiff's right to maintain second action). \[35\] Johns-Manville has catalogued an impressive array of court decisions exemplifying the general res judicata rule against splitting an indivisible cause of action…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · December 27, 1995 · in the opinion
Hefner v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1995)
…suit was filed. While the county where the injury occurred generally has a strong interest in the outcome of litigation, this general rule does not necessarily apply to cases involving complex products liability issues. (See Mowen…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi · November 21, 1980 · in the opinion
McCarty v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1980)
…1969) the Court stated: "Because this is a diversity case, the law of the state where the district court sat controls questions [\339] of res judicata and estoppel. See also Aerojet-General Aviation Corp. v. Askew…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · August 28, 1995 · in the opinion
Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1995)
…s fees to fight asbestos litigation cases." The district court ruled that any well-informed citizen could possess general knowledge about Johns-Manville and that the report from the juror was not prejudicial to the defendants…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · May 11, 1998 · in the opinion
McCauley v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1998)
…wages. \[4\] In Simmons, the supreme court noted a limited exception to the general rule that a plaintiff does not have a viable cause of action for asymptomatic pleural thickening. This exception recognizes that a plaintiff…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 3, 1982 · in the opinion
Staiano v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1982)
…Pa.R.App.P. 301(a). Appellants acknowledge the general rule that an issue not argued below may not be argued on appeal, but nevertheless assert that their argument is not waived. They say: [\293] The…
-
Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · April 6, 1999 · in the opinion
Tester v. American Standard, Inc. (1999)
…604.02, subd. 3 (1998), provides an exception to this general rule and allows an at-fault plaintiff to recover from a less-at-fault defendant in products liability cases. Section 604.02, subdivision 3, provides…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division · January 18, 1979 · in the opinion
Weinberg v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp. (1979)
…situation in which the parties have appeared and entered into opposition by virtue of the pleadings. As a general rule, the relevance of this procedural aspect to the situation where the movant has exclusive knowledge impels…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · August 8, 1991 · in the opinion
Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (1991)
…On appeal from the judgment subsequently entered, OCF offers four general challenges: (1) the district court erred in denying its initial motion for a directed verdict and later motion to dismiss the complaint; (2) the district…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Common Pleas · January 12, 1987 · in the opinion
Lavelle v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1987)
…developing cancer in the future. Ohio courts have not specifically addressed the issue presented here but the general policy of this state has been to permit recovery for reasonable apprehension of a potential harm flowing from…