10 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · April 19, 1982 · in the opinion
Beshada v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1982)
…Rather, defendants state, the cost "will be borne by the public at large and reflected in a general, across the board increase in premiums to compensate for unanticipated risks." There is some truth in this assertion…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · January 22, 1986 · in the opinion
Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1986)
…they have already been punished enough. They stated to the trial judge that punitive damages serve to motivate "private attorneys general" to bring suit, but argued that persons injured by asbestos have motivation enough to sue…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · January 21, 1985 · in the opinion
Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)
…As a consequence, federal courts would become increasingly responsible for establishing a general federal tort law in a manner we think is inconsistent with the teachings of Erie and the logic behind our federal system. Cf…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 23, 1984 · in the opinion
Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984)
…not prove that he presently suffers from that disease. In arguing that the cancer evidence was properly admissible, Jackson relies on the general rule of tort law that allows for recovery of all harms — past, present…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · October 28, 1981 · in the opinion
Fearson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)
…The defendants' first argument is that plaintiff's "survival" claim is time-barred under the law of the District of Columbia, which provides that the general period of limitations is three years. See D.C.Code …
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit · July 30, 1982 · in the opinion
Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)
…first action may expressly reserve plaintiff's right to maintain second action). \[35\] Johns-Manville has catalogued an impressive array of court decisions exemplifying the general res judicata rule against splitting an indivisible cause of action…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · April 7, 1981 · in the opinion
Clutter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)
…does not apply to cases already filed before the amendment was enacted. Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution states that the "general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, ..." Section 1.58(A)(1…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · December 7, 1983 · in the opinion
Clay v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983)
…other issues remaining in relation to defendant Raybestos-Manhattan, the first issue pertains to the judge's instruction to the jury on the possible effect of a general 10-year statute of limitations, T.C.A…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · September 16, 1983 · in the opinion
Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983)
…Thompson can advance in support of his claim that Louisiana would adopt either if presented his case is a supposed general tendency or trend on the part of Louisiana courts to expand the liability of manufacturers…