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

Search

378 results for “General Electric”, page 19 of 19

  1. Court case · New York Supreme Court · March 31, 2014 · in the opinion

    Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc. (2014)

    …his mesothelioma." He continues that "any such exposure would have been negligible (if any occurred at all) and indistinguishable from general background exposures to chrysotile asbestos that are not known to be sufficient to induce mesothelioma…

  2. Court case · New York Supreme Court · June 16, 2014 · in the opinion

    Houston v. Beazer E., Inc. (2014)

    …continuity of management, personnel, physical location, assets and general business operation." Fitzgerald v Fahnestock & Co., 286 AD2d 573, 574-575 (1st Dept 2001). Courts will also "look to whether the acquiring corporation was seeking to obtain…

  3. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 19, 2018 · in the opinion

    Vitale v. Burnham, LLC (2018)

    …App. 438, 451 (2010) (citations and quotations omitted). "Mere general allegations of conclusory assertions will not suffice." Id. (citations omitted). Additionally, "a mere scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's claim is…

  4. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · June 20, 2012 · in the opinion

    Union Carbide Corporation v. Aubin (2012)

    …is required to warn end-users directly: There is no general rule as to whether one supplying a product for the use of others through an intermediary has a duty to warn the ultimate product user…

  5. Court case · California Court of Appeal · December 9, 2020 · in the opinion

    Hart v. Keenan Properties, Inc. (2020)

    …Dr. Horn based his testimony on the Rawlings summary. Instead, Dr. Horn relied on his general experience as a physician and hospital director, which provided a reasonable basis for his opinion regarding future medical costs. (§ 801…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of New York · August 15, 2012 · in the opinion

    Garner v. Ngc Bodily Injury Trust (2012)

    …injuries did not manifest within three years of exposure, and thus, would have otherwise been barred. See Jensen v. General Elec. Co., 82 N.Y.2d 77, 84 (1993). The statute provides: the three year period…

  7. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · October 16, 2007 · in the opinion

    Hicks v. Biltrite (2007)

    …1126 (R.I. 2001) (citations omitted); Volino v. General Dynamics, 539 A.2d 531, 532-533 (R.I 1988). The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing that no genuine issues of material fact exist…

  8. Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · May 21, 2018 · in the opinion

    Conda v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2018)

    …causation experts were foundationally reliable and properly admitted" and that "those opinions established a prima facie case of general and specific causation using the legal standard established by the court when trial commenced." The district court…

  9. Court case · New York Supreme Court · September 3, 2014 · in the opinion

    Feuerman v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2014)

    …All seven of the plaintiffs in proposed joint trial Group One are alleged to have been exposed, in general, to asbestos at commercial and residential job sites in and around the New York City area while…

  10. Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · November 21, 1979 · in the opinion

    Caudle-Hyatt, Inc. v. Mixon (1979)

    …husband's earnings. It is highly unlikely that the General Assembly intended to restrict the conclusive presumption of total dependency to instances where the spouse had demonstrated that he or she was wholly dependent. Such a…

  11. Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · November 28, 1978 · in the opinion

    Daniels v. Combustion Engineering, Inc. (1978)

    … and fifth, the legal existence of the first suit. "The general rules above laid down have been held applicable, notwithstanding the fact that one suit is at law and the other in equity. Because a deposition…

  12. Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 6, 2013 · in the opinion

    Peraica v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2013)

    …such as Peraica were at high risk of injury due to high-dose asbestos exposure from removing ACMs from Defendant's boilers (far more than a general awareness of the linkage between asbestos exposure and disease)…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin · September 30, 2016 · in the opinion

    Suoja v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2016)

    …has not met his burden of establishing that this exposure was a substantial factor in causing Suoja's mesothelioma. [\1207] Defendant does not dispute as a general matter that exposure to asbestos caused Suoja's mesothelioma…

  14. Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · July 29, 2008 · in the opinion

    James v. 3M Corporation (2008)

    …play and substantial justice." Juelich, 682 N.W.2d at 570. The degree of the defendant's contacts with the forum state determines whether the defendant may be subject to general or specific personal jurisdiction. Marshall…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · September 30, 2017 · in the opinion

    Leech v. 3M Co. (2017)

    …the removal statute's unanimity requirement, all defendants removing under the general removal statute must join in or consent to removal if they have been "properly joined and served."\[79\] Here, the parties do not dispute…

  16. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · May 14, 2009 · in the opinion

    Benoit v. AW Smith Corporation (2009)

    …depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions on file, and affidavits of the parties to determine whether these documents present a genuine issue of fact. Volino v. General Dynamics, 539 A.2d. 531, 532-33 (R.I. 1988)…

  17. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · February 17, 1999 · in the opinion

    Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Noppert (1999)

    …to harmonize the provisions of a statute and give effect to all of its provisions, or save it from unconstitutionality or, in general, to effect the obvious intention of the legislature." (emphasis in original)); Dague v…

  18. Court case · New York Supreme Court · August 29, 2014 · in the opinion

    McCloskey v. AO Smith Water Prods. (2014)

    …First Department, recently upheld a verdict finding that a general contractor acted recklessly, relying on evidence of the contractor's actual knowledge of the dangers of asbestos and that asbestos was being used at its work…