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

Search

100 results for “General Electric”, page 4 of 5

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 16, 2007 · in the opinion

    Garcia v. Duro Dyne Corporation (2007)

    …(Owens); (2) distributors including Thorpe Insulation Company (Thorpe) and Bell Industries, Inc. (Bell),\[1\] and (3) general contractors including Holmes and Narver, Inc. (Holmes). The Garcias proceeded to trial against just two defendants, Duro Dyne and…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin · January 9, 1981 · in the opinion

    Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1981)

    …one of the occasional hardships necessarily incident to a law arbitrarily making legal remedies contingent on mere lapse of time.'"' (Emphasis added.)" Applying the general rules set forth above on interpretation of Wisconsin statutes of limitations…

  3. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · October 30, 2002 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois v. Gianotti (2002)

    …v. Martin, 14 Pa. D. & C.3d 325, 328 (1980)); and "the time of the accident" (Hendrix v. General Motors, 146 Cal.App.3d 296, 193 Cal.Rptr. 922, 927 (1983)). See Miles, 58 Md.App…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · June 6, 2013 · in the opinion

    Joyner v. AC & R. Insulation Co. (2013)

    …concluded that jurisdictional disclaimers are invalid in the context of the federal officer removal statute (as opposed to the general removal statute) for two related reasons. "First, the presumption under the general removal statute favors remand…

  5. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · April 26, 1999 · in the opinion

    Holmes v. ACandS, Inc. (1999)

    …year discovery based statute of limitations applicable to product liability claims. The comprehensiveness of the medical malpractice act is evidence of the legislature's intent that it should prevail over the more general wrongful death statute…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · December 22, 2014 · in the opinion

    Krik v. Crane Co. (2014)

    …Arnold Brody, who intend to testify that, in general, each and every exposure to asbestos products results in injury to the person so exposed. Krik believes that this testimony will help him to establish that his…

  7. Court case · Colorado Supreme Court · September 16, 1991 · in the opinion

    Miller v. Armstrong World Industries (1991)

    …each possible disease related to asbestos exposure has a separate limitations period. "If this is an unfair result, the remedy for its correction lies with the General Assembly" and not with this court. Crownover v. Gleichman…

  8. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · December 22, 1989 · in the opinion

    Sholtis v. American Cyanamid Co. (1989)

    …theory of non-identification liability is acceptable in New Jersey. \[9\] The court "reserve\[d\] decision on the general appropriateness of including products with different degrees of risk in a market-share analysis." 116 N.J…

  9. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · October 18, 1995 · in the opinion

    ACandS, Inc. v. Godwin (1995)

    …we have now evidence of the consequences of exposure, but we do not have, in general, accurate measures of the levels of exposure occurring 20 or 30 years ago, which have given rise to these consequences…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · June 23, 1999 · in the opinion

    Lambert v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1999)

    …we must address two issues. First, we must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether the incident had "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce." Id. (quoting Sisson v. Ruby…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin · September 9, 2015 · in the opinion

    Suoja v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2015)

    …so waiver is not an issue. "Wisconsin courts apply the following general rule \[to determine whether issue preclusion applies\]: \When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final…

  12. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · August 11, 1998 · in the opinion

    McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1998)

    …even though both individuals deny it. In any event, plaintiffs do not rely solely upon parallel action to prove their cases. A defendant who understands the general objectives of the conspiratorial scheme, accepts them, and agrees…

  13. Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · October 21, 1999 · in the opinion

    McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999)

    …could look beyond these problems, I still would not agree with the majority's decision. A defendant is liable as a conspirator where he understands the general objectives of the conspiratorial scheme, accepts them, and agrees…

  14. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · July 27, 1988 · in the opinion

    Blazek v. Nicolet, Inc. (1988)

    …We disagree. • 1 The general intent of statutes of repose is to "terminate the possibility of liability after a defined period of time, regardless of a potential plaintiff's lack of knowledge of his cause of…

  15. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit · April 13, 1989 · in the opinion

    Kaiser v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1989)

    …late 1985 or early 1986 that he suffered from asbestosis. The Kaisers filed this lawsuit seeking general and special damages for Kaiser's asbestos-related injuries on August 15, 1986. III. All parties accept in their…

  16. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · August 12, 1996 · in the opinion

    Nelson v. Keene Corp. (1996)

    …pleadings shall be according to the rules." 735 ILCS 5/2-201(a) (West 1994). General jurisdiction is invoked in the trial court when an action is filed and a summons is issued and served upon…

  17. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · September 4, 1997 · in the opinion

    In re Celotex Corp. (1997)

    …exposure thereto.... (J.A. 44-45). Rapid's claim against the Celotex bankruptcy estate was principally based upon a written agreement entitled "General Assignment & Assumption of Liabilities," (J.A. 52), wherein Celotex's predecessor in interest…

  18. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 30, 1999 · in the opinion

    Porter Hayden Company v. Wyche (1999)

    …to the earliest diagnosis, from adenocarcinoma is 13.2 years." Although Porter Hayden seems to take issue in its reply brief with the use of general epidemiological testimony to draw inferences in specific cases, in Grimshaw…

  19. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · August 29, 1990 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1990)

    … 388 (1965), observing that the section had previously been adopted as a general principle in the duty to warn area by previous Maryland cases. Section 388 states as follows: Chattel Known to Be Dangerous for Intended…

  20. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 15, 1985 · in the opinion

    Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp. (1985)

    …any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However…