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

Search

434 results for “General Electric”, page 19 of 22

  1. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · December 22, 2016 · in the opinion

    Arpin v. Consol. Rail Corp. (2016)

    …626, 68 S.Ct. 296. Prior to the action, Callen had executed a general release relieving the railroad company from liability for personal injuries sustained in the occurrence. Id. at 626-627, 68 S.Ct. 296…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · May 1, 1981 · in the opinion

    Fusco v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1981)

    …1975) is not in point. In Kellum, the court determined that the United States in general was not subject to state statutes of limitations; however, nothing in the opinion indicates that a state statute of limitations…

  4. Court case · Washington Supreme Court · October 15, 1987 · in the opinion

    Lockwood v. AC & S, Inc. (1987)

    …jury. The evidence before the jury included expert testimony on asbestos and the disease of asbestosis, the dangerousness of asbestos to individuals in general and to shipyard workers, and the effects of combining smoking with asbestosis…

  5. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · December 29, 1988 · in the opinion

    Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1988)

    …accrued to him not later than 1980. Furthermore, it should be noted that when the release was signed the Pecorinos did think about any exclusions or exceptions from the general, full and final release [\570] when…

  6. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · January 10, 2002 · in the opinion

    Harris v. AC & S., Inc. (2002)

    …1995), trans. denied. In general, product liability actions must be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues or within ten years after the delivery of the product to the initial user or consumer…

  7. Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · August 7, 1991 · in the opinion

    Money v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Comp. Fund (1991)

    …997 (1987). Just as the General Assembly has recognized that the proximate cause of injuries which are attributable to medical negligence are ordinarily only determinable by expert medical knowledge, this Court has held that expert medical…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · October 28, 1981 · in the opinion

    Fearson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)

    …The defendants' first argument is that plaintiff's "survival" claim is time-barred under the law of the District of Columbia, which provides that the general period of limitations is three years. See D.C.Code …

  9. Court case · Delaware Superior Court · May 16, 2012 · in the opinion

    In re Geier (2012)

    …of Justice, at 4. \[3\] Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defense Coordinating Counsel's Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens and in the Interest of Justice, at 5. \[4\] See General Foods Corp. v. Cryo…

  10. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 30, 1999 · in the opinion

    Porter Hayden Company v. Wyche (1999)

    …to the earliest diagnosis, from adenocarcinoma is 13.2 years." Although Porter Hayden seems to take issue in its reply brief with the use of general epidemiological testimony to draw inferences in specific cases, in Grimshaw…

  11. Court case · North Carolina Court of Appeals · August 16, 2005 · in the opinion

    Payne v. Charlotte Heating & Air Cond. (2005)

    …silicosis and other latent occupational diseases and we can conceive of none. As [\363] was true in Walters, the general goals articulated by defendants for the statute are legitimate state interests, but N.C. Gen.Stat…

  12. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 16, 1987 · in the opinion

    Hughes v. Western MacArthur Co. (1987)

    …issues and to apprise the defendant of the basis on which the plaintiff seeks recovery. (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211-212 \[197 Cal. Rptr. 783…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · July 5, 2017 · in the opinion

    MacCormack v. the Adel Wiggins Group (2017)

    …App. Ct. 1987) (reasoning that a worsening of a condition did not justify a subsequent new action as "\[t\]he general rule is, of course, that a plaintiff is entitled to one recovery in a personal…

  14. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit · July 30, 1982 · in the opinion

    Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …first action may expressly reserve plaintiff's right to maintain second action). \[35\] Johns-Manville has catalogued an impressive array of court decisions exemplifying the general res judicata rule against splitting an indivisible cause of action…

  15. Court case · Delaware Superior Court · April 26, 2019 · in the opinion

    Weddle v. BP Amoco Chemical Company (2019)

    …85 A.3d at 80. \[14\] Id. at 78. \[15\] Delaware recognizes the validity of general releases in relation to personal injury claims, which "are executed to resolve the claims the parties know about as well…

  16. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit · April 13, 1982 · in the opinion

    Director, Office OF Workers'comp. v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. (1982)

    …Corp. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently has held that the Director has standing to appeal because of his general administrative responsibility and his financial interest in the special fund…

  17. Court case · Virginia Court of Appeals · August 27, 2002 · in the opinion

    Robertson v. DuPONT (2002)

    …Williams to apply the special method for calculating average weekly wage set out in Code § 65.1-52 rather than the general method in Code § 65.1-6\[4\] may be explained by the fact that…

  18. 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.

  19. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 2, 1982 · in the opinion

    Baptist v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (1982)

    …examination, and his exclusive reliance on the Selikoff study. The latter study concluded that among 17,800 members of the general public 17.5 cases of death from pancreatic cancer could be expected. Among asbestos workers…

  20. 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…