Search

• Organization: Raymark Industries, Inc. ×
• Clear filters

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

1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · June 3, 1985 · in the opinion

   Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)

   …Court has expressly held, in Turner v. General Motors Corporation,\[36\] that, although evidence of the expectations of the ordinary consumer and the care of a prudent manufacturer may be introduced at trial, "henceforth in the…

2. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · August 11, 1986 · in the opinion

   Shelly v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

   …those injured "are by coincidence employees but at the time of injury are not engaged in the business of the employer and are in their independent capacities as members of the general public."). In our view…

3. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 20, 1992 · in the opinion

   Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1992)

   …TAMILIA, KELLY and JOHNSON, JJ. [\442] WIEAND, Judge: The general issue in this asbestos exposure action is whether Pennsylvania, in the context of asbestos actions, shall be a one-disease or two-disease state. More specifically…

4. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii · December 9, 1986 · in the opinion

   In re Hawaii Federal Asbestos Cases (1986)

   …Moreover the Hawaii Court of Appeals has held that the introduction of concepts of "unreasonableness" and "foreseeability" into products liability confuses the jury and equates strict liability with negligence. Boudreau v. General Elec. Co., 2 Haw…

5. Court case · Washington Supreme Court · October 15, 1987 · in the opinion

   Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc. (1987)

   …jury. The evidence before the jury included expert testimony on asbestos and the disease of asbestosis, the dangerousness of asbestos to individuals in general and to shipyard workers, and the effects of combining smoking with asbestosis…

6. 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…

7. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · January 17, 1989 · in the opinion

   Falk v. Keene Corporation (1989)

   …effects of human exposure to asbestos. Initially, defendant Raymark reserved "the right to direct and ... to use the general information \[from Dr. Demopoulos's testimony\] in closing argument." Once, however, it was apparent that appellants sought…

8. 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…

9. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · February 5, 1986 · in the opinion

   Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1986)

   …The purpose of class actions is to conserve "the resources of both the courts and the parties by permitting an issue potentially affecting every \[class member\] to be litigated in an economical fashion." General Telephone Co…

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 · Ohio Court of Common Pleas · January 12, 1987 · in the opinion

    Lavelle v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1987)

    …developing cancer in the future. Ohio courts have not specifically addressed the issue presented here but the general policy of this state has been to permit recovery for reasonable apprehension of a potential harm flowing from…

12. Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · February 4, 1991 · in the opinion

    Koker v. Armstrong Cork, Inc. (1991)

    …344, 348, 693 P.2d 687 (1985): In an ordinary personal injury action, the general rule is that a cause of action "accrues" at the time the act or omission occurs. In certain torts, however, injured…

13. 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…