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

Search

327 results for “General Electric”, page 11 of 17

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 13, 2012 · in the opinion

    Shields v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012)

    …53 Cal.4th 335, also supports this argument. B. Tellez-Cordova In Tellez-Cordova, the court conducted an analysis of a ruling sustaining a general demurrer involving a similar issue. (Tellez-Cordova, supra, 129 Cal.App…

  2. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · December 11, 2012 · in the opinion

    Gaskill v. Abex Corporation (2012)

    …Defendants-Respondents, and AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., BORG-WARNER CORPORATION c/o Burns International Services Corporation; CHRYSLER CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, MARTIN CHRYSLER, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR MFG. NORTH AMERICA…

  3. Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 17, 2010 · in the opinion

    Smith v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2010)

    …reasonable probability that in the absence of the error, a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached." (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 574.) "It is well settled…

  4. Court case · New York Supreme Court · October 12, 2021 · in the opinion

    Faivor v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2021)

    …(2) that the toxin is capable of causing the particular injuries plaintiff suffered (general causation) and (3) that the plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause such injuries (specific causation)" (Sean R…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia · October 20, 1981 · in the opinion

    Large v. Bucyrus-Erie Co. (1981)

    …was exposed to silica and asbestos dust while operating the machines. Of course, the general rule in Virginia is that the limitations period begins to run when the initial injury, even if relatively slight, is sustained…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 18, 2015 · in the opinion

    Greenberg v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2015)

    …8 Cal.3d at p. 126; accord, Horn v. General Motors Corp., supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 366.) O'Neil In O'Neil, our Supreme Court examined the extent to which a manufacturer may be…

  7. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 18, 2015 · in the opinion

    Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2015)

    …did so. Thus, the complaint's general allegations cannot reasonably be regarded as a binding admission that the linings released [\1152] asbestos fibers regardless of whether they were being abraded by the machine. Accordingly, Hennessy has…

  8. Product

    Asbestos Brakes, Clutches, and Friction Materials

    …only did brake jobs part of the time. Does that count? Yes. Brake work was a recurring part of general auto repair, gas station work, and fleet maintenance, and the claims process is built around real…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · March 19, 2021 · in the opinion

    Labarre v. Bienville Auto Parts, Inc. (2021)

    …original). In Loupe v. Pennsylvania General Insurance Co., the other paper that started the clock for removal was a deposition transcript that showed the plaintiff personally worked with asbestos in the construction of federal ships. 2016…

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · January 3, 2008 · in the opinion

    Hilbert v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (2008)

    …Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir.2005); Lovern v. General Motors Corp., 121 F.3d 160, 162 (4th Cir. 1997). The challenge is determining how specific the pleadings must be to place the defendants…

  11. Court case · Delaware Superior Court · November 8, 2017 · in the opinion

    Leathers v. Pneumo Abex (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)

    …in Rhode Island.\[1\] The Court noted that "this test comports with \[their\] Supreme Court's general causation jurisprudence and fairly balances the interests of plaintiffs and defendants."\[2\] The Sweredoski decision is a 2013 decision…

  12. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 23, 2018 · in the opinion

    Williams v. the Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack OF California (2018)

    …As to the punitive damages claim, Pep Boys asserted that appellants' evidence failed to show that Pep Boys had anything more than a general knowledge of the hazards of asbestos, and did not rebut testimony by…

  13. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 3, 2016 · in the opinion

    Davis v. Honeywell International Inc. (2016)

    …to \determine whether, as a matter of logic, the studies and other information cited by experts adequately support the conclusion that the expert's general theory or technique is valid.'" (Sargon, supra, 55 Cal.4th at…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · April 15, 2015 · in the opinion

    Stellar v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2015)

    …Gen. Motors Corp., 170 F.3d 367 (3d Cir.1999). \[7\] Although not unique to this Court, or to asbestos litigation in general, the substance of Plaintiffs' complaint merits discussion. Asbestos litigation in Northampton County, Pennsylvania…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 5, 2017 · in the opinion

    Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company (2017)

    …1103.) Even assuming Dr. Horn is correct as to the cause of mesothelioma in general, plaintiffs had the burden to prove that exposure to asbestos-containing materials at Rossmoor was a substantial factor in contributing to…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida · September 25, 2018 · in the opinion

    Doolin v. Ford Motor Company (2018)

    …401 F.3d at 1242. The four criteria are as follows: (1) has the toxic substance in question been demonstrated to cause the type of illness or disease in question (general causation), (2) was the individual…

  17. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 19, 2012 · in the opinion

    Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2012)

    …1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1137-1138 \[74 Cal.Rptr.2d 510\] (Weeks).) We give only a general summary of the facts relating to liability and compensatory damages, because the details are not germane to…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · August 11, 2022 · in the opinion

    Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022)

    …motion is GRANTED with respect to Finkelstein's testimony concerning specific causation. Defendants' motion is DENIED with respect to Finkelstein's testimony concerning general causation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony…

  19. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · September 23, 2004 · in the opinion

    In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. (2004)

    …they are entitled to discovery of all of Sears' asbestos-related products because the issue is Sears' knowledge of the danger of asbestos in general to show "what Sears knew and when it knew it." However…

  20. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 2014 · in the opinion

    Kesner v. Superior Court of Alameda County (2014)

    …the same as under a claim of premises liability. The norm in considering negligence claims is the general duty to use reasonable care to avoid injuring others. When considering the scope of an employer's obligations…