18 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · July 22, 2011
Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (2011)
Four consolidated asbestos cases in the federal asbestos MDL in Pennsylvania involved Navy veterans or a shipyard worker who developed mesothelioma. Robert Conner, James Prange and James Stone served at sea on Navy ships as a machinist's mate and…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois · December 2, 2016
Perez v. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (2016)
The court granted General Electric's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (without prejudice) and denied the motions by Air & Liquid Systems, Warren Pumps and John Crane to dismiss the loss of consortium count…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · May 15, 2019
Rogers v. Warren Pumps (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2019)
The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Warren Pumps, General Electric, Air & Liquid Systems, Charles A. Wagner Co., and Asbestos Corporation Ltd. against plaintiff Richard Rogers, because he could not show exposure to any defendant…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · July 21, 2011
Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (2011)
Four consolidated asbestos cases in the federal MDL-875 docket involved Navy-related mesothelioma. Robert Conner, James Prange and James Stone served aboard Navy ships, working with engine rooms, fire rooms and boilers. Hiram Peavy worked as a…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · June 17, 2021
Gay v. AO Smith Corporation (2021)
…law, a plaintiff must show exposure to the defendant's product and that it was a substantial factor in causing the injury. A general recollection of a product's name, its presence on a ship, or…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · May 13, 2019
Rogers v. Nosroc Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2019)
…Steinaker, Norfolk; DuPont Seaford plant, Seaford machinist mate USS Moale Newport 1966-1967; machinist mate performing pump maintenance USS Steinaker Norfolk 1967-1970; housekeeping DuPont Seaford plant Seaford 1966, 1970-1973; general construction, builder 1973 onward
-
Court case · California Supreme Court · January 12, 2012 · in the opinion
O'neil v. Crane Co. (2012)
…981 P.2d 978\]; cf. Artiglio v. General Electric Co., supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at pp. 838-839 \[foreseeability of harm from a finished product is not sufficient to impose a duty to warn on…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · October 9, 2018 · in the opinion
Mikelsen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018)
…Westinghouse Electric Corporation & Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendants, represented by Christopher S. Marks, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Erin P. Fraser, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP. Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw, K&L GATES LLP. General Electric…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 18, 2009 · in the opinion
O'neil v. Crane Co. (2009)
…General Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 830 \[71 Cal.Rptr.2d 817\] (Artiglio), on which the trial court here based its ruling, is no different. In that case, General Electric (GE) supplied bulk silicone…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · March 1, 2021 · in the opinion
Varney v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (2021)
…COMPANY INC.; DARIGOLD, INC.; ELLIOTT TURBOMACHINERY CO. INC.; FMC CORPORATION; FRYER-KNOWLES, INC.; FRYER-KNOWLES, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; THE GORMAN-RUPP COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS LLC; GRINNELL LLC; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC.; ITT, LLC…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · June 26, 2018 · in the opinion
Pieno v. Crosby Valve (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2018)
…a claim under Florida law, a plaintiff must simply show that a defendant's product was a "substantial contributing factor" to the injury that occurred.\[11\] Faddish v. General Electric Co., 2010 WL 4146108, at [\3…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · December 18, 2015 · in the opinion
May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2015)
…federal district court in Illinois that, applying maritime law, carved out an exception to what it called the "bare metal defense"\[13\]: In general, consistent with the bare metal defense, a manufacturer is not liable for…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · July 30, 2020 · in the opinion
Pruitt v. Amdura (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2020)
Pruitt perform general maintenance on these pumps every one to two months, which required removing and replacing gaskets and packing material. (Id.) Mr. Dumas further testified that Mr. Pruitt's maintenance work took two to three…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 3, 2010 · in the opinion
Davis v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2010)
…user defense, the ordinary users would have been Davis's employers, not Davis. As support, appellants cite Maneely v. General Motors Corp. (9th Cir. 1997) 108 F.3d 1176. In Maneely, applying California law, the court…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · November 27, 2017 · in the opinion
Donohue v. CBS Corporation (2017)
…notices of removal, there are nearly two dozen other defendants involved in this action. As a general matter, "the consent of all defendants in a multiparty case is a precondition to removal." Green v. Nat's…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · October 22, 2010 · in the opinion
Faddish v. Warren Pumps, LLC (2010)
…Warren's objection that Mr. Faddish's testimony regarding pumps is too general to support an inference of Warren's liability is overruled, as Plaintiff's expert testimony is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama · September 29, 2011 · in the opinion
Kite v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (2011)
…her under color of such office. . . ." (Complaint at 13-14). It is this language on which the plaintiff relies for his disclaimer argument. As a general matter, "the plaintiff \[is\] the master of the claim. . . ." Caterpillar…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · July 20, 2018 · in the opinion
Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018)
…negligence, premises liability, conspiracy, and strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities. (SAC § V.) They seek general and special damages for pain, suffering, "loss of spousal relationship," disability, medical expenses, and economic loss. (Id.) Saberhagen moves for…