228 results for “General Electric”, page 11 of 12
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 2, 2013 · in the opinion
Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Carter (2013)
…the non manufacturer supplier to warn plaintiffs is different under some circumstances than the duty of a manufacturer. In general, the supplier-installer is not held to a standard as strict as imposed on the manufacturer.
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 19, 2017 · in the opinion
Aquitato v. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2017)
…Mass toxic tort cases, including asbestos cases, may be consolidated if they meet the requirements of the general rule governing consolidation of cases (In re Asbestos Litigation, 173 F.R.D.81, 38 Fed.R.Serv…
-
Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · March 25, 2003 · in the opinion
Harris v. AC & S., Inc. (2003)
…was proximately caused by his exposure to asbestos-containing products provided by the Defendants. The Indiana General Assembly has enacted two statutes that limit the period of time within which individuals can file product liability claims…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · August 25, 2009 · in the opinion
Ross v. Union Carbide Corporation (2009)
…the parties also stated their intentions in broad but general terms: It is the intent and purpose of this agreement that at no time will the Releasees be called upon to pay any further sum or…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · August 30, 2017 · in the opinion
Kivell v. Union Carbide Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)
…a United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held that the Smtih court expanded the general land owner duty to include that a land owner "had a duty to take reasonable steps to…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · February 3, 2021 · in the opinion
Steib v. Lamorak Insurance Company (2021)
…defendants; Marathon's motion stated that it was joining the motions, in general, "to the extent that said motions and memorandum do not conflict with Marathon's defenses in this matter." As to Parsons' motion, in…
-
Court case · Alaska Supreme Court · June 25, 1993 · in the opinion
Peek v. Skw/clinton (1993)
…and General Engineering. An administrative law judge denied both claims, but Kelaita appealed only his claim against Triple A. Id. at On remand from an order vacating the judge's ruling, the judge found that General…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · September 2, 2022 · in the opinion
Adams v. Eagle, Inc. (2022)
…in which, for example, one circuit held "\[w\]hen only minimal or very general requirements are set for the contractor by the United States the \[government contractor defense\] is inapplicable." \[127\] Accordingly, under Boyle, in this…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Kansas · January 12, 2018 · in the opinion
Little v. the Budd Company (2018)
…and 30. Plaintiff seeks general and special damages "including but not limited to, damages for survival and wrongful death claims that Plaintiff sustained both in her individual capacity and as heir to \[her father's\] estate…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · July 22, 2016 · in the opinion
Hartfield v. 3M Company (2016)
…however, because she did not allege that the dealership had knowledge of the defect when it sold the car and state law did not impose on the dealership a general post-sale duty to warn. Id…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · December 14, 2022 · in the opinion
McLaughlin v. C&d Contractors (2022)
…interpret the Act liberally to effectuate its remedial objective.\[35\] This liberal interpretation recognizes that the General Assembly passed the Act for the express purpose of benefitting the worker and requires the Court to resolve any…
-
Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · February 15, 1994 · in the opinion
Davies v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1994)
…knowledge with him as a member of the board of directors of OI. The adverse exception of the general rule is not applicable in this case. Ames was not acting solely for his own personal benefit…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · January 25, 2019 · in the opinion
Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019)
…Holdings, 198 P.3d 493 (Wash. 2008) recognized the general rule that "a manufacturer does not have an obligation to warn of the dangers of another manufacturer's product." Braaten, 198 P.3d at 501. Therefore…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 24, 2015 · in the opinion
Best v. The William Powell Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2015)
…engine, pumps, valves, steam traps, and turbines, and general cleanup. After he left the Navy, Best performed brake jobs on vehicles using asbestos-containing brakes. (NYSCEF 95). Defendants remaining in his action are Carrier Corporation, Goulds…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 30, 2002 · in the opinion
McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (2002)
…summary judgment was reversed on appeal. In Scheiding, a general contractor defendant supported its summary judgment motion with a declaration from counsel stating that the plaintiff did not mention the defendant in discovery. (Id. at p…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · December 14, 2006 · in the opinion
Quarles v. Advocate Mines Limited (2006)
…specialist in occupational medicine called by Quarles, testified not about any specific facts of this case, but about the evolving general state of knowledge in medicine, science and industry, and about the dangers of asbestos in…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · July 21, 2010 · in the opinion
Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2010)
…breath. In so finding, Dr. Gelfand noted that, while the obstructive lung condition due to smoking showed "some improvement," in general, the reduction in lung diffusion remained severe. See Report of Dr. Gelfand concerning Frederick Summers…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · May 8, 2009 · in the opinion
Rando v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2009)
…has been destroyed, lost, or stolen. Article 1832 is an exception to the general rule that when an obligation is based on a writing, prima facie proof of the obligation requires introducing that writing. See Ascension…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · May 11, 1998 · in the opinion
McCauley v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1998)
…wages. \[4\] In Simmons, the supreme court noted a limited exception to the general rule that a plaintiff does not have a viable cause of action for asymptomatic pleural thickening. This exception recognizes that a plaintiff…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · February 13, 2004 · in the opinion
Smalls v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (2004)
…Trial, 12/4/01, at 32. Appellant argues that the opinion was inadmissible because it had no basis in fact nor general acceptance in the scientific community. We disagree. ¶ 11 Again, we observe that the admission…