11 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · Georgia Court of Appeals · March 20, 2012 · in the opinion
Union Carbide Corporation v. Fields (2012)
…and Doyle, P. J., concur. \[1\] We note that this Court granted General Electric Company's motion to withdraw its appeal from Case No. A11A2025. \[2\] OCGA § 51-12-33 (d) provides as follows: (d) (1…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · June 20, 2017 · in the opinion
Altman v. Ford Motor Co. (In re New York City Asbetos Litigation, 2017)
…The 13 defendants remaining in his action are: American Biltrite, Inc., Burnham, CBS Corp., Conwed Corp., Domco Products Texas, Inc., General Electric Company, Genuine Parts Company, Georgia-Pacific, Grinnell, Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., Mannington Mills, Inc.…
-
Court case · Georgia Supreme Court · September 9, 2013 · in the opinion
Georgia-Pacific, LLC v. Fields (2013)
…GENERAL CABLE INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and as a successor in interest to BICC CABLES CORP." For the purposes of this opinion, we assume that "Phelps Dodge" is incorporated in references to BICC CABLES CORP., or GENERAL…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2010
Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)
The court denied all four Daubert motions, allowing plaintiffs' causation experts (Brody, limited to general causation, and Legier), defense industrial hygienist Dyson's dose reconstruction testimony, and defendants' causation experts to testify. Expert testimony is admissible…
-
Court case · Utah Supreme Court · January 30, 2015 · in the opinion
Riggs v. Georgia-Pacific LLC (2015)
…we were faced with a statutory conflict between the general statute of limitations for wrongful death claims and the statute of limitations found in Utah's Health Care Malpractice Act.\[26\] There we applied the more…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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 · 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…