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

Search

40 results for “General Electric”, page 2 of 2

  1. Court case · Delaware Superior Court · August 23, 1983 · in the opinion

    Nutt v. AC & S., Inc. (1983)

    …claims of mental anguish asserted by the plaintiff-wives are alleged in the amended complaints in broad and general language but are actually of two distinct types: mental anguish resulting from the witnessing of the physical…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · August 1, 1989 · in the opinion

    Mauro v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1989)

    …in the evaluation of the damage claim against the defendant. In this way, to the extent that men can achieve justice through general rules, a just balance of the warring interests is accomplished. \[Citations omitted\]. Cf…

  4. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · February 20, 1998 · in the opinion

    Ruckstuhl v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1998)

    …The "minimum contacts" prong of the test can be broken down into two types of personal jurisdiction, specific and general. A state exercises "specific jurisdiction" over a non-resident defendant when the lawsuit arises from or…

  5. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · August 5, 1999 · in the opinion

    Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. Walters (1999)

    …be raised at any point in the proceeding. A preliminary motion is, therefore, necessary to assure the application of the laws of another jurisdiction. General Chem. Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916…

  6. 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…

  7. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2013 · in the opinion

    In re Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (2013)

    …103:10-13 (Diggs). 68. Typically, the asbestos claims against PPG contained general products liability allegations, or allegations that might be interpreted in such a manner, asserted against all defendants, along with specific allegations about PPG…

  8. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 23, 1999 · in the opinion

    Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. James (1999)

    …exposure to asbestos. The issue really is the more general one—whether forcing any movant to await final judgment makes the issue of inconvenient forum effectively non-reviewable. Our view as to that was, to some…

  9. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · January 27, 1984 · in the opinion

    Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)

    …June 27, 1978 is broad in its scope and is to be liberally construed,\[3\] but is not without its limitations. In its general provision it states: Courts of record, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have…

  10. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · December 29, 1988 · in the opinion

    Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1988)

    …accrued to him not later than 1980. Furthermore, it should be noted that when the release was signed the Pecorinos did think about any exclusions or exceptions from the general, full and final release [\570] when…

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · March 1, 2000 · in the opinion

    Burgess v. Abex Corp. EX rel. Pneumo Abex (2000)

    …787, 720 N.E.2d at 258), but did not comment on, Adcock\s statement: "A defendant who understands the general objectives of the conspiratorial scheme, accepts them, and agrees, either explicitly or implicitly\[,\] to do…

  14. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware · October 7, 2011 · in the opinion

    In re ACandS, Inc. (2011)

    …filed),\[12\] or a ballot is filed with respect to the plan of reorganization,\[13\] the details of the putative creditor's interests have been kept from general public view to [\98] retain and protect privacy…

  15. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · April 11, 2000 · in the opinion

    In re Patenaude (2000)

    …the instant case, where the possibility exists that even individual settlement negotiations will be more efficient if facilitated by a judge who is intimately familiar with the general issues and many of the parties, and where…

  16. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · December 15, 1988 · in the opinion

    Whatley v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1988)

    …474 (5th Cir.1985); see Shipp v. General Motors Corp., 750 F.2d 418, 425 (5th Cir.1985) (Duncan placed the allocative burden of comparative causation on the defendant). Sufficiency of the Evidence Whatley contends that…

  17. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · October 5, 1981 · in the opinion

    White v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1981)

    …admiralty jurisdiction and rejected claims under the Extension of Admiralty Act, 46 U.S.C. § 740, or the general maritime law, 28 U.S.C. § 1333, because the alleged injuries bore no reasonable relationship to traditional…

  18. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · November 9, 2001 · in the opinion

    Emery v. Owens-Corporation (2001)

    …suitable references to plaintiff's closing argument), we issue a precautionary warning that the general reference to "witnesses" in its admissibility assertion skirts the outer perimeter of Rule 2-12.4. \[9\] See La. Acts 1979…

  19. 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…

  20. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · September 21, 1995 · in the opinion

    Baumgart v. Keene Bldg. Products Corp. (1995)

    …835 (1967). However, we have long recognized an exception to this general rule which acts to toll the running of the limitations period. The discovery rule "provides that where the existence of the injury is not…