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

Search

235 results for “General Electric”, page 10 of 12

  1. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · November 29, 1995 · in the opinion

    United Nat. Ins. v. France Refractories (1995)

    …466 A.2d 103, 105 (1983). We have observed that, "\[i\]n the absence of fraud or concealment, it is a general rule that laches follows the statute of limitations." Silver v. Korr, 392 Pa. 26…

  2. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2013 · in the opinion

    In re Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (2013)

    …103:10-13 (Diggs). 68. Typically, the asbestos claims against PPG contained general products liability allegations, or allegations that might be interpreted in such a manner, asserted against all defendants, along with specific allegations about PPG…

  3. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 20, 1992 · in the opinion

    Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1992)

    …TAMILIA, KELLY and JOHNSON, JJ. [\442] WIEAND, Judge: The general issue in this asbestos exposure action is whether Pennsylvania, in the context of asbestos actions, shall be a one-disease or two-disease state. More specifically…

  4. Court case · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · December 17, 1996 · in the opinion

    United Insurance v. France Refractories (1996)

    …1983). This is consistent with the general rule that a cause of action does not accrue until the time when the plaintiff could have first maintained the cause of action to a successful conclusion. Kapil v…

  5. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · February 21, 2012 · in the opinion

    Daley v. AW Chesterton, Inc. (2012)

    …280 n. 8. Moreover, because mesothelioma, in general, is so rare, "any case occurring after a well attested and substantial asbestos exposure is commonly accepted as being caused by that exposure." Id. at 283 (footnote omitted);…

  6. Court case · Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court · March 24, 1983 · in the opinion

    Asbestos Insul. Co. v. Wcab (McGOVERN) (1983)

    …the fact that Mr. McGovern was exposed to asbestos in this short period of time that you mentioned might probably have aggravated his general pulmonary status because of being exposed to the offending agent. You see…

  7. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · August 22, 2023 · in the opinion

    Vitcavich v. Owens Corning/fibreboard Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (2023)

    …Finally, the Bankruptcy Code does not preclude all tort litigation under these circumstances, as even under a general bar to litigation a channeling injunction may still "expressly allow\[\]" for specific legal actions. 11 U.S.C…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · February 16, 2011 · in the opinion

    Anderson v. Salmon Bay and Gravel Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2011)

    …testimony. Second, with regard to Dr. Brody, Plaintiffs state that he was provided no case-specific materials and offers opinions only as to general causation. (Resp. at 5.) Plaintiffs also allege that Dr. Brody did not…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · May 7, 1992 · in the opinion

    Sealover v. Carey Canada (1992)

    …112 S.Ct. 1671, 118 L.Ed.2d 391 (New Rule 238 withstands constitutional challenges on due process and equal protection grounds.); Leonard v. General Motors Corp., Civil No. 88-2380, slip op. at 5 (E…

  10. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · January 27, 1984 · in the opinion

    Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)

    …June 27, 1978 is broad in its scope and is to be liberally construed,\[3\] but is not without its limitations. In its general provision it states: Courts of record, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · November 22, 2010 · in the opinion

    Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)

    …Angell noted that Dr. Brody's expert testimony at trial will be limited to "general testimony about how asbestos causes cancer and may not include any opinion as to specific causation in this case." (Mem. Op…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · August 5, 2009 · in the opinion

    Anderson v. Bondex Int'l (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2009)

    …address the standards pertaining to relation back, and then proceed to apply those standards to the case before us. Relation Back in General Relation back is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) which provides…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 25, 2011 · in the opinion

    Vest v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2011)

    …that the specific product at issue were defendant's turbines on naval ships; merely naming the defendant, general equipment and identifying the Naval yard worksite in the complaint was insufficient. Barnes, 2011 WL 925414 at [\2]…

  14. Court case · Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court · January 6, 2016 · in the opinion

    Zenak v. Police Athletic League OF Philadelphia (2016)

    …Officer Zenak testified that, during this visit, Sgt. Ervin berated Officer Zenak about the general condition of the Center, specifically complaining about the Center's light fixtures and holes in the walls. (Trial Tr. at 153…

  15. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · February 11, 2009 · in the opinion

    Vanaman v. Dap, Inc. (2009)

    …limits the asbestos-related liability of Pennsylvania corporations when that liability arises from a merger or consolidation. In general, the Statute caps the successor corporation's asbestos-related liability at the fair market value of the…

  16. 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…

  17. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · February 21, 2020 · in the opinion

    Brandt v. Bon-Ton Stores, Inc. (2020)

    …nature, but novel or of questionable reliability, it is necessary for the trial court to consider whether the "methodology that underlies the evidence has "general acceptance in the relevant scientific community." Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 18, 2011 · in the opinion

    Graver v. Allentown Cement Co. (In re Liability Litigation, 2011)

    …Second, it recognizes the general principle of deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum. Allowing removal only when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a defendant ensures that the plaintiff will not be inappropriately forced out of…

  19. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 30, 2004 · in the opinion

    Gilbert v. Monsey Products Company (2004)

    …1988). In this case, I find the general principles of Eckenrod applicable. Where appellant himself testified about his exposure to the appellees' products and provided sufficient evidence of product identification, the trial court's grant of…

  20. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · June 19, 1990 · in the opinion

    Novelli v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1990)

    …60, 515 A.2d 1350 (1986). The Craig court discussed the general purpose of delay damages, as follows: Rule 238 was promulgated as an exercise of this Court's rule-making authority. It was a bold…