178 results for “General Electric”, page 9 of 9
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · June 8, 2012 · in the opinion
Petrina v. Allied Glove Corp. (2012)
…612 A.2d 500, 508 (1992); Pollock Industries, Inc. v. General Steel Castings Corp., 203 Pa.Super. 453, 201 A.2d 606, 611 (1964). Where a representative for a corporation acts within the scope of his…
-
Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · February 26, 2020 · in the opinion
Union Carbide Corporation v. Font (2020)
…chair' defense, the defendant need only answer the complaint with a general denial and argue to the jury that the injury was due to the negligence of a non-party to the suit." Vila v. Philip…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · December 13, 2014 · in the opinion
Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. (2014)
…to the trial court, Dr. Mark's testimony simply "does not carry the day" because it is of a general nature, and because plaintiffs did not have any evidence of specific causation, the court could not…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · March 30, 2023 · in the opinion
Ragusa v. Louisiana Guaranty Insurance Association (2023)
…Expert testimony is required to establish causation, and a court may admit specific-causation evidence only after the plaintiff has produced admissible evidence on general causation. Id. To show specific causation in a toxic tort case…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · February 11, 2015 · in the opinion
Smith v. Union Carbide Corporation (2015)
…509 U.S. at 596. As a general rule, questions relating to the basis and sources of an expert's opinion rather than its admissibility should be left for the jury's consideration. United States v…
-
Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · March 29, 2010 · in the opinion
Asbury v. AW Chesterton Company (2010)
…Forum Non Conveniens 1 Standard of Review The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows "a court \[to\] resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute." Kedy…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · October 9, 2014 · in the opinion
Papp v. Fore-Kast Sales Co., Inc. (2014)
…removal pursuant to Section 1442(a)(1). DISCUSSION I. Federal Officer Removal Jurisdiction A. Legal Standard "\[T\]he general rule that federal courts have an ever present obligation to satisfy themselves of their subject matter jurisdiction. . …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · August 1, 2014 · in the opinion
Rothchild v. Crane Co. (2014)
…467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). As a general rule, the Court must "limit\[\] its consideration to the pleadings and exhibits attached thereto" when deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Grossman v. Nationsbank…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · May 22, 2017 · in the opinion
Smith v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (2017)
…Ltd.; BayerCropscience Inc.; Beazer East, Inc; Bird Incorporated; OneBeacon American Insurance Company; Houston General Insurance Company; The Stonewall Insurance Company; First State Insurance Company; American Insurance Company; Home Insurance Company; United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · October 21, 2009 · in the opinion
DiBenedetto v. Noble Drilling Company (2009)
…article 1671 mandates that a judgment dismissing a defendant, at plaintiff's request, prior to a general appearance by that defendant must be without prejudice. We disagree with CTS's interpretation of La. C.C.P…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · July 21, 2010 · in the opinion
Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2010)
…breath. In so finding, Dr. Gelfand noted that, while the obstructive lung condition due to smoking showed "some improvement," in general, the reduction in lung diffusion remained severe. See Report of Dr. Gelfand concerning Frederick Summers…
-
Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · August 22, 2012 · in the opinion
Union Carbide Corporation v. Aubin (2012)
…is required to warn end-users directly: There is no general rule as to whether one supplying a product for the use of others through an intermediary has a duty to warn the ultimate product user…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · October 4, 2011 · in the opinion
Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. (2011)
…Mark, a 1967 Harvard Medical School graduate, is employed as a pathologist in the Department of Pathology at Massachusetts General Hospital and practices primarily in pulmonary and autopsy pathology. Dr. Mark is also a professor at…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 2, 2009 · in the opinion
Wangen v. Gardner Denver, Inc. (2009)
…d\] that Soco West, Inc. is not subject to jurisdiction in the State of Washington." Plant Insulation Company presented a declaration from its general counsel. Based upon his personal knowledge, he averred that the company was…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · May 2, 2023 · in the opinion
Everett v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (2023)
…argument that the Everetts had failed to provide any proof as to specific causation, although they conceded that Dr. Larned's deposition testimony potentially spoke to the issue of general causation. Also on April 12, 2022…
-
Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · June 20, 2012 · in the opinion
Union Carbide Corporation v. Aubin (2012)
…is required to warn end-users directly: There is no general rule as to whether one supplying a product for the use of others through an intermediary has a duty to warn the ultimate product user…
-
Court case · Tennessee Supreme Court · September 8, 2011 · in the opinion
Kelley v. Union Carbide Corporation (2011)
…occupational injury claims. We disagree. "The meaning of the statute is determined by viewing the statute as a whole and in light of its general purpose." City of Lenoir City v. State ex rel. City of…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · October 28, 2011 · in the opinion
Howard v. AW Chesterton Co. (2011)
…articles in an attempt to support their claims that respirable fibers were present. However much of this information is irrelevant to this case in general and ACE specifically. The simple fact remains that \[Appellants'\] attempt to…