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

Search

15 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · August 28, 1996 · in the opinion

    Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett (1996)

    …Fibreboard, Foster Wheeler, GAF Corporation, Garlock, General Electric, Owens-Illinois, Pittsburgh Corning and Westinghouse were cross-claim defendants. Crane Packing was found not liable and is not involved in this appeal. \[6\] See part III, section…

  2. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 3, 1997 · in the opinion

    Anchor Packing Co. v. Grimshaw (1997)

    …3\] (Emphasis added). In addition, the legislative history of C.J. § 11-108 indicates that the General Assembly intended that the cap apply broadly, as opposed to only malpractice claims. In January 1986, Senate Bill No…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · March 7, 2013 · in the opinion

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

    …the weight of the proof presented—that matters." Id. at 782-83. After reviewing the conflicting cases, this court finds the analysis in Hagen cogent and consistent with the general removal standard. 28 U.S.C. …

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · January 31, 1986 · in the opinion

    Knauer v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …federal judiciary an equal power, and certainly no such judicial power could reasonably be inferred from the grant of authority to the Supreme Court to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure. When matters of state…

  5. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · June 1, 2005 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Hunter (2005)

    …the integrity of our proper role, vis a vis, the General Assembly. We explain. Maryland's cap on noneconomic damages in personal injury or wrongful death actions is codified at Md.Code (1998 Repl.Vol.), Cts…

  6. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 10, 1992 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1992)

    Castleman also testified that some general-knowledge encyclopedias included notes on asbestosis as early as 1939 or 1940. The Court of Special Appeals reviewed this evidence and held that "\[a\] jury ... could reasonably infer that Porter…

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. 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…

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. 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…

  15. 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…