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

Search

13 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit · January 31, 1990

    Kraciun v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1990)

    …Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1953 onward (except Navy 1954-1958); service crew, general maintenance worker and electrical maintenance worker E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. plant, Clinton, Iowa Clinton 1948-1985; maintenance person…

  2. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · August 17, 1998 · in the opinion

    Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1998)

    …that exposure sufficient to cause asbestosis is also sufficient to cause mesothelioma, lung cancer, and pleural plaques. \[18\] The crafts were divided into four general groupings: "Production Crafts" (some thirteen in all, including e.g. pumper…

  3. Court case · North Carolina Supreme Court · November 5, 1985 · in the opinion

    Wilder v. Amatex Corp. (1985)

    …E.2d 281 (1972); Galligan v. Chapel Hill, 276 N.C. 172, 171 S.E.2d 427 (1970); Domestic Electric Service Co., Inc. v. Rocky Mount, 20 N.C.App. 347, 201 S.E.2d 508…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Virginia · July 19, 1984 · in the opinion

    Joyce v. AC & s., Inc. (1984)

    …asbestos insulation materials. Plaintiff, an industrial electrician who had worked with asbestos insulation from 1948 to 1972, claimed that inhalation of asbestos fibers and dust during that period had caused him to develop mesothelioma, a cancerous…

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · September 10, 1973 · in the opinion

    Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation (1973)

    …of the same danger. This inconsistency in the jury's verdicts, although puzzling, need not detain us. It has long been the rule that consistency in general verdicts is not required. Dunn v. United States, 1932…

  6. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · June 10, 1986 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …Inc., Rapid American, Uni-Royal, Carolina Asbestos Co., J. Franklin Burke General Asbestos Co., Ruberoid Company, Keaseey Mattison Co., Asten Hill Manufacturing Co. Argued December 17, 1985. Filed June 10, 1986. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. [\60…

  7. Court case · Texas Supreme Court · November 30, 2000 · in the opinion

    Pustejovsky v. Rapid-American Corp. (2000)

    …American argues that Pustejovsky's lack of knowledge of the scope of his damages from his exposure to asbestos does not affect the accrual of his cause of action. Following these general rules, Rapid American contends…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · November 19, 1984 · in the opinion

    Colombo v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)

    13, 68 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981) (federal law shall govern issues arising in negligence actions under LHWCA section 5(b)) with Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Atlantique, 443 U.S. 256, 272 n. 31, 99 S…

  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 · 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 · 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…

  12. 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…

  13. 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…