12 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · March 23, 1993
Miller v. American President Lines, Ltd. (1993)
…suppliers under comparative fault, and otherwise affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff estate. Punitive damages are not available in a general maritime law unseaworthiness action for the wrongful death of a seaman. Indemnity and contribution among…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama · January 28, 2010 · in the opinion
Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc. (2010)
…Elliot Turbomachinery Co., 545 F.Supp.2d 1266, 1273 (S.D.Fla.2008) (citing Nesbiet v. General Electric Co., 399 F.Supp.2d 205, 212 (S.D.N.Y.2005)). Although these arguments may undermine the…
-
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…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · September 18, 2013 · in the opinion
Gillenwater v. Honeywell Intern., Inc. (2013)
…participate in the conspiracy. Id. If, after resigning from General Electric, Naples had come clean and reported the conspiracy to authorities, the conspiracy — which he had helped to arrange — would have been thwarted. In the government…
-
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…
-
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. …
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · October 21, 1998 · in the opinion
Asbestos v. Bordelon, Inc. (1998)
…Bordelon's health. The trial court has much discretion in assessing general damages, and an appellate court should not modify the award unless it is beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could assess for…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit · June 2, 1993
Jackson v. Anchor Packing Co. (1993)
…had worked at the plant for sixteen to twenty-three years between 1956 and 1979. Most were general tireworkers who did not handle the products. The complaint and the doctors' testimony said the workers had asbestosis…
-
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 · 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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois · August 28, 2015 · in the opinion
McALVEY v. Atlas Copco Compressors, LLC (2015)
…limited to the frequency, regularity and proximity of Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos products in general and his conclusion that Plaintiff experienced a significant exposure to asbestos based on his work activities. Finally, Defendants argue that…