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

Search

12 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · Washington Supreme Court · August 31, 1995 · in the opinion

    Brewer v. Fibreboard Corp. (1995)

    …Bartells Company; G.K. Technologies, Inc., successor in interest to General Cable Company; General Electric Company; Okonite Company; Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Ericcsson North America, Inc., successor in interest to Anaconda Wire & Cable Company, and successor in…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · December 9, 1992

    Taliferro v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1992)

    …Fear of Cancer and Medical Monitoring; Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (Philadelphia Navy Yard); Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia laborer doing general cleanup and debris removal on ships Philadelphia Naval Shipyard Philadelphia 1967-1981

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · March 5, 1986 · in the opinion

    Herber v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …Asbestos Textile Institute Inc.; Uni-Royal Inc.; Carolina Asbestos Company; J. Franklin Burke Co.; General Asbestos Co.; Asbestos Textile Co.; Ruberoid Company Inc.; and John Doe(s). Appeal of EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant in No…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  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 · 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…

  10. 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…

  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 · 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…