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

Search

178 results for “General Electric”, page 7 of 9

  1. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · June 18, 2012 · in the opinion

    Union Carbide Corporation v. Synatzske (2012)

    …City of Austin, in which the Texas Supreme Court explained, The general rule is that when a statute is repealed without a savings clause limiting the effect of the repeal, the repeal of that statute is…

  2. Court case · Utah Court of Appeals · April 4, 2013 · in the opinion

    Riggs v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (2013)

    …P.2d 629, 634 (Utah 1995) ("The general rule regarding statutes of limitations is that the limitation period begins to run [\67] when the last event necessary to complete the cause of action occurs."). In other…

  3. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · December 26, 2001 · in the opinion

    Burns v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (2001)

    … John Crane, Inc.; DAP, Inc.; Fibreboard Corporation; GAF Corporation; General Refractories Company; Harbison-Walker Refractories Company; Harcros Chemicals, Inc., as Successor-in-Interest to Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company; Kaiser Refractories, A Division of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical…

  4. Company document · Motley 1000 · September 29, 1975

    H. B. Rhodes of Union Carbide on Asbestos Papers at the International Congress on Occupational Health (1975)

    …particulate materials such as silica or talc. The Congress was attended by over 2,000 delegates. Rhodes reports that, in general, the Congress produced only one bombshell in the asbestos area, a paper by Dr. M…

  5. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 21, 2014 · in the opinion

    Izell v. Union Carbide Corporation (2014)

    …which may be as little as three months." Though acknowledging a "general inference that Crocidolite \[asbestos\] is more liable to produce mesothelioma," the report cautioned that "\[e\]xoneration of \[Union Carbide's\] Chrysotile \[asbestos\] has not…

  6. Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · December 29, 2010 · in the opinion

    Griffin v. Allis-Chalmers Corporation Product Liability Trust (2010)

    …in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party—here, plaintiff—and draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Jones v. General Motors Corp., 325 Or 404, 408, 939 P2d 608 (1997). Plaintiff worked as…

  7. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · December 23, 2014 · in the opinion

    Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. (2014)

    …It then concluded that the only evidence plaintiffs had on causation was Dr. Mark's "general causation" opinion (that exposure to asbestos causes mesothelioma) and that opinion did not "carry the day." On January 29, 2013…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · April 19, 2016 · in the opinion

    Davidson v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (2016)

    …3] (W.D.La.2013) (citing cases). \[4\] Gomez is useful for its general point that courts interpreting the Federal Magistrates Act should do so in a manner that avoids constitutional concerns about the exercise of…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · March 4, 2016 · in the opinion

    Bourke v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (2016)

    …56\] In Poche, the court began with the general premise that "\[a\] case that is initially nonremovable may become removable through the voluntary dismissal of nondiverse defendants."\[57\] All but one of the defendants—Eagle, Inc.…

  10. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · March 2, 2021 · in the opinion

    Neely EX rel. Estate OF Goehring v. Union Carbide Corporation (2021)

    …manufactured, or marketed by Union Carbide were a substantial factor in causing Janet's mesothelioma. Union Carbide does not raise a general causation challenge. As the parties acknowledge, the proper framework for analysis of specific causation…

  11. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 22, 2014 · in the opinion

    Izell v. Union Carbide Corp. (2014)

    …which may be as little as three months." Though acknowledging a "general inference that Crocidolite \[asbestos\] is more liable to produce mesothelioma," the report cautioned that "\[e\]xoneration of \[Union Carbide's\] Chrysotile \[asbestos\] has not…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · July 28, 2014 · in the opinion

    Pickard v. Dap, Inc. (2014)

    …Cir. 1983). When a party seeking removal alleges fraudulent joinder, the removing party bears the substantial burden of proving the alleged fraud. See Parnas v. General Motors Corp., 879 F. Supp. 91, 92 (E.D. Mo…

  13. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · August 25, 2005 · in the opinion

    Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2005)

    …is highly practical. Therefore, this decision is applicable only to asbestos-related cases and not to summary judgment cases in general. ¶ 5 Essentially, plaintiffs ask this Court en banc to overrule the panel decision in Quate…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · July 17, 2017 · in the opinion

    Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (2017)

    …702(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, nor do they satisfy the Daubert factors, including "testability," "peer review," and "general acceptance" within the "relevant scientific community," Bresler, 855 F.3d at 195. On the contrary…

  15. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · June 27, 1996 · in the opinion

    Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc. (1996)

    …requirements of predominance and superiority. In In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir.) \[Hereinafter GM Trucks\], cert. denied sub nom. General Motors Corp. v…

  16. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · June 30, 2011 · in the opinion

    Union Carbide Corporation v. Synatzske (2011)

    …effect, it cannot be granted thereafter. A like general rule is that if a right to recover depends entirely upon a statute, its repeal deprives the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter. 135 Tex. 95…

  17. Court case · Florida Supreme Court · October 29, 2015 · in the opinion

    Aubin v. Union Carbide Corporation (2015)

    …jury instructions pertaining to the duty to warn. Aubin requested the trial court to include a general instruction that Union Carbide had the duty to warn the end user, while Union Carbide asserted that it was…

  18. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · July 6, 2018 · in the opinion

    Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. v. Rossello (2018)

    …defendants; January 4, 2016 was the deadline for the plaintiff to name his "most likely to use" general product identification fact witnesses from the original fact witness list who have been previously deposed; January 18, 2016…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · October 1, 2014 · in the opinion

    Smith v. Union Carbide Corp. (2014)

    …at 3. "In general, a premises owner has a duty of exercising reasonable care for the safety of persons on its premises and a duty of not exposing such persons to unreasonable risks of injury or…

  20. Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 15, 2010 · in the opinion

    Union Carbide Corporation v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2010)

    …conflicting inference we must ignore. (Kuhn v. Department of General Services (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1632-1633 \[all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment must be indulged\].) II. The use of John's…