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

Search

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

  1. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit · July 12, 1985 · in the opinion

    Lee v. Celotex Corp. (1985)

    …through 1976 contained asbestos. However, in paragraph 2 of the general objections to those interrogatories, National Gypsum states that it answers those interrogatories "with reference to products that may have been used to insulate pipes, boilers…

  2. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · June 30, 1992 · in the opinion

    O'banion v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1992)

    …Moore, 648 P.2d 21, 23-24 (Okla.1982); Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353, 1362-63 (Okla.1974) (adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A in products liability actions). \[6\] The court…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · May 3, 1995 · in the opinion

    Rohrbaugh v. Celotex Corp. (1995)

    …the product left the Defendant's possession and control, and that the defect made the product unreasonably dangerous. Kirkland v. General Motors Corp., 521 P.2d 1353, 1363 (Okla.1974). The "unreasonably dangerous" prong of this…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · August 5, 1985 · in the opinion

    Rosenberg v. Celotex Corp. (1985)

    …101, 108 N.E. 217 (1915), and Carrick v. Central General Hospital, 51 N.Y.2d 242, 434 N.Y.S.2d 130, 414 N.E.2d 632 (1980), in support of her argument that she…

  5. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · May 26, 1992 · in the opinion

    Rohrbaugh v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1992)

    …Appellants answered with a general denial that their products were defective and that they were negligent. The case was tried to a jury and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs and against…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · September 11, 1986 · in the opinion

    Vigiolto v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …Applicable Law. We begin with the proposition that in a tort action, as a general rule, proof that a [\1457] specific defendant caused the plaintiff's harm is a prerequisite to that defendant's liability to…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · July 18, 1984 · in the opinion

    Laster v. Celotex Corp. (1984)

    …268 (1979) ("\[t\]he Surgeon General advises me that clinical experience indicates a person who smokes and has been exposed to asbestos faces a greater risk of developing asbestosis and of dying from a respiratory ailment…

  8. 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…

  9. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · September 24, 1987 · in the opinion

    VaSalle v. Celotex Corp. (1987)

    …Defendants assert that plaintiff's causes of action accrued in 1972 when VaSalle discovered that he was suffering from asbestosis. • 1, 2 As a general rule, when a plaintiff suffers an obvious injury from a single…

  10. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 12, 1990 · in the opinion

    King v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1990)

    …the Raybestos-Manhattan Corporation from 1929 to 1953. The "Sumner Simpson papers" consist of correspondence between Simpson and the general counsel for Johns-Manville during the years 1935-1939. The papers tend to show awareness of…

  11. 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…

  12. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · March 6, 1984 · in the opinion

    Copeland v. Celotex Corp. (1984)

    …This defect is the cause of the alleged injury, and in a very general sense its existence must constitute under the respective theories of recovery a breach of a duty, a breach of a warranty and…