292 results for “General Electric”, page 11 of 15
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 21, 2012 · in the opinion
Robinson v. Ssw, Inc. (2012)
…to specific enumerated "chapters and sections ... to the exclusion of the law of the jurisdiction in which they are [\600] incorporated." These specific enumerated provisions include neither chapter 2 in general nor section 2010 in particular. (…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 8, 2014 · in the opinion
Ganoe v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation (2014)
…response, the plaintiff provided "little more than general allegations against" the defendant and "d\[id\] not state specific facts showing that \[the plaintiff\] was actually exposed to asbestos-containing material from \[the defendant's\] products." (Id…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 28, 2008 · in the opinion
Garza v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2008)
…sufficient contact with the state for the court to assume either general or limited jurisdiction over it. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, asserting among other things that ACL had consented to jurisdiction by making a general appearance…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of California · March 17, 2014 · in the opinion
Willis v. Buffalo Pumps Inc. (2014)
…or dust allaying media. (Stewart Decl. ex G).\[2\] Plaintiff also emphasizes Defendant's concession that it was familiar with and subject to California general industry safety orders (Caldo Trans. 2162:16-22), that it knew…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 7, 2011 · in the opinion
Kelemen v. John Crane, Inc. (2011)
…erroneous instruction. . . ."'" (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 574.) When determining whether an error of instruction and/or instructional omission was prejudicial, the court must evaluate the state of the evidence, the…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2012 · in the opinion
Barker v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012)
…A Manufacturer Owes No General Duty to Warn of Defects in Another Manufacturer's Product. A manufacturer's duty to warn does not extend to hazards arising solely from other products. The decedent in O'Neil…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of California · March 29, 2013 · in the opinion
Willis v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2013)
…officer) ... for or relating to any act under color of such office..." II. DISCUSSION In general, a defendant can only remove a case to federal court if the plaintiff could have brought the action there originally…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 30, 2017 · in the opinion
Johnson v. Dock (2017)
…response, the plaintiff provided "little more than general allegations against" the defendant and did "not state specific facts showing that \[the plaintiff\] was actually exposed to asbestos-containing material from \[the defendant's\] products." (Ibid., italics…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 28, 1996 · in the opinion
Jenkins v. T & N Plc (1996)
…defendants, including T&N. The complaint contained causes of action for strict liability and loss of consortium. In addition to general and special damages, the Jenkinses sought damages for loss of earnings, income and earning capacity. ...…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 30, 2024 · in the opinion
Brooks v. Mission Stucco Company (2024)
…4th 413, 424 (Wysinger).) However, "\[w\]ith a special verdict, unlike a general verdict or a general verdict with special findings, a reviewing court will not infer findings to support the verdict." (Singh, at p. 358…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · December 11, 2020 · in the opinion
Booker v. Imerys Talc America, Inc. (2020)
…although Dr. Longo offered specific opinions only about Vanderbilt's talc products, his general testimony about asbestos—including the properties of asbestos, the definition of an asbestiform fiber, and the best method for detecting asbestos—was…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 6, 2006 · in the opinion
Lyons v. Chinese Hospital Association (2006)
…to airborne asbestos. Lyons produced evidence that the release of asbestos occurred directly adjacent to the hospital lobby, in which CHA employees worked and members of the general public congregated, and through which patients, employees and…
-
Court case · California Supreme Court · February 18, 2010 · in the opinion
McCann v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2010)
…law. Although section 361 provides that, in general, a cause of action arising in another state cannot be maintained in California if the other state's law bars the action due to a lapse of time…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 11, 2008 · in the opinion
Crowley Maritime Corporation v. Boston Old Colony Insurance Company (2008)
…and (2) respondents are not signatories to the arbitration agreements, and the general rule under both California and federal law is that nonsignatories cannot be compelled to arbitrate. Appellants claim the trial court erred. We disagree…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 23, 2023 · in the opinion
Ramirez v. Avon Prods. (Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2023)
…§ 2025.620, italics added.) While discovery in general aids both plaintiffs and defendants equally, the tools of discovery are intended to benefit the party utilizing those tools. The purpose of a deposition is not to aid…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 30, 2013 · in the opinion
Steiner v. Volkswagen Group OF America, Inc. (2013)
…fn. 22. As defendants point out, Ledesma referred to the scope of expert cross-examination in general, as set forth in section 721, subdivision (a), and did not address the limits of permissible cross-examination regarding…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 2012 · in the opinion
Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012)
…plaintiffs' injuries. I. Standard of Review A motion for judgment on the pleadings is analogous to a general demurrer. (Ludgate, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 602.) Like a general demurrer, it tests the sufficiency…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 30, 2010 · in the opinion
Russell v. Ford Motor Company (2010)
…if not all, of the cars he worked on were made by Ford, General Motors or Chrysler. As part of his duties, he used an air compressor to blow the dirt off the outside of the…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 16, 2014 · in the opinion
Hellam v. Crane Co. (2014)
…General Motors Corp., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 566.) This test "is not necessarily foreclosed simply because the product at issue is only in specialized use, so that the general public may not be familiar…