100 results for “General Electric”, page 3 of 5
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 26, 2005 · in the opinion
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook (2005)
685 (2000), addressing "whether the general rule (that no loss of consortium claim exists for an ante-nuptial tort) applies in cases where, at the time of the marriage, the injury to the spouse is latent…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 26, 2005 · in the opinion
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook (2005)
685 (2000), addressing "whether the general rule (that no loss of consortium claim exists for an ante-nuptial tort) applies in cases where, at the time of the marriage, the injury to the spouse is latent…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 17, 1995 · in the opinion
Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1995)
…the court was confronted with a complicated claim that General Motors' defective design of the wheel assembly and front floorboard enhanced the injuries the plaintiff suffered when another car collided with the left front wheel area…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · November 28, 1988 · in the opinion
Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1988)
…113 (3d Cir.1985) (evidence of general use of Pittsburgh Corning's Unibestos at job site was sufficient to allow jury to find Pittsburgh Corning to be a factor in causing the plaintiff's injury). \[13…
-
Court case · Colorado Court of Appeals · September 12, 1991 · in the opinion
Fenton v. Fibreboard Corp. (1991)
…witnesses' services shown. In addition to the fees for expert testimony, plaintiff's bills of costs included deposition costs and "general expenses." It is unclear whether the court found these costs reasonable or which, if any…
-
Court case · Missouri Supreme Court · September 10, 1991
Hagen v. Celotex Corp. (1991)
…A plaintiff must show through expert testimony that each defendant's product was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Evidence showing only asbestos exposure in general, or that a defendant's product may have contributed…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · February 25, 1999 · in the opinion
Owens Corning v. Walatka (1999)
…For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the general rule imposing the burden on the plaintiff should be applied in this case against appellees. A. THE BURDEN TO ESTABLISH THAT THE STATUTORY CAP DOES NOT…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · January 25, 2017 · in the opinion
All Craft Fabricators, Inc. v. Atc Assoc., Inc. (2017)
…asbestos event occurred at the facility whereby wooden doors and panels from the United Nations construction project were ordered by the owner and general contractor to be reworked and finished by All Craft at the facility…
-
Court case · Colorado Supreme Court · February 16, 1993 · in the opinion
Fibreboard Corp. v. Fenton (1993)
…their set-off against the total judgment owed by other tortfeasors. Had the General Assembly intended this additional requirement to be met prior to set-off, it simply could have included a provision so requiring in…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Kansas · August 19, 1986 · in the opinion
Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1986)
…the cause in fact of his injuries does not undermine the principle that a defendant should only be held responsible for the damage it caused. As long as a plaintiff can prove general causation, i.e.…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · August 23, 2007 · in the opinion
Rahmes v. Adience Inc. (2007)
…contracting or selling or installation business? {¶ 23} "A. Yes. {¶ 24} "Q. And general idea, how far outside of Cincinnati, Cincinnati area would some of these operations take place? {¶ 25} "A. Do you have a time framework…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 1, 1993 · in the opinion
Watkins v. Fibreboard Corp. (1993)
…asbestos was the producing cause. This is a basic issue in this case, articulated to some extent in the trial judge's general instructions, but not clearly articulated by either party, except perhaps by the plaintiffs…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · March 15, 2007 · in the opinion
Vince v. Crane Co. (2007)
…sua sponte order Owens-Illinois, Inc. dismissed from this appeal. \[3\] The General Assembly effectively overruled paragraph two of the syllabus to Horton with the adoption of R.C. 2307.96(B), effective to cases filed…
-
Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · February 5, 1985 · in the opinion
Meehan v. Celotex Corp. (1985)
…of the negligent act. Indeed, as Gaboury itself says: "In determining the proper forum in which to bring suit under the general statute fixing venue where the cause of action \arose', or \accrued', the \injury occurred…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · June 30, 1992 · in the opinion
Feldman v. Owens-Illinois (In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litigation, 1992)
…statute: "There is no justification for rewarding recalcitrant non-settling defendants by permitting them to apply the General Obligations Law offset in a manner that reduces or even obliterates their own liability in cases where plaintiffs…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 7, 1992 · in the opinion
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong (1992)
…283 Md. 296, 327, 389 A.2d 887, 905 (1978). Causation is a necessary element of any strict liability action. Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337, 344, 363 A.2d 955, 958 (1976). In…
-
Court case · Ohio Supreme Court · October 14, 1987 · in the opinion
Goldman v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1987)
…it is important to understand that both alternative liability and market-share liability are exceptions to the general rule that a plaintiff has to prove an injury was caused by the negligence of a particular defendant…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · March 13, 1981 · in the opinion
Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)
…to be persuaded that the choice of law made in Flatt is correct. That is, under any standard, federal law applies. Aerojet-General Corporation v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710 [\1361] (5th Cir. 1975); Willis v…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · August 31, 2012 · in the opinion
Menssen v. Pneumo Abex Corporation (2012)
…signatory to the Saranac Agreement.) Abex received a copy of the 1948 Saranac report from Vandiver Brown, Johns-Manville's general counsel. Brown requested the nine financing companies meet in the Johns-Manville boardroom November 11…
-
Court case · Wisconsin Supreme Court · October 27, 1999 · in the opinion
Sopha v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999)
…Wisconsin would not turn a deaf ear to argument that in a particular sort of case the policy reasons [\236] for allowing an exception override the policy reasons for applying the general rule. 236 Patzer v…