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

Search

36 results for “General Electric”, page 2 of 2

  1. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · November 6, 2001 · in the opinion

    Allied Signal, Inc. v. Herring (2001)

    …[\1036] Moreover, section 2 was enacted to extend the general limitations period in express recognition of the long latency period associated with asbestos-related diseases and illnesses. Extending the limitations period only for the very few…

  2. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · September 14, 2001 · in the opinion

    Parks v. AP Green Industries, Inc. (2001)

    …disease and its cause constitutes a new injury and the basis for a separate cause of action. In general, product liability actions must be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues or within…

  3. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · April 26, 1999 · in the opinion

    Holmes v. ACandS, Inc. (1999)

    …year discovery based statute of limitations applicable to product liability claims. The comprehensiveness of the medical malpractice act is evidence of the legislature's intent that it should prevail over the more general wrongful death statute…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · February 7, 1995 · in the opinion

    Castor v. US (1995)

    …This fact, which is consistent with what the United States claims (at least in a general sense), shows that the BOP is exercising its discretion in handling ACM at the USP-Terre Haute. It is undisputed…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana · September 30, 2021 · in the opinion

    Hostetler v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2021)

    …415-1 ¶65; DE 436 ¶ 65.) Chlorinated volatile organic compounds can also be present in the "background," as a result of general industrial pollution or through cleaning products, air fresheners, arts-and-crafts products, gun cleaners…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · June 23, 1999 · in the opinion

    Lambert v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1999)

    …we must address two issues. First, we must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether the incident had "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce." Id. (quoting Sisson v. Ruby…

  7. Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · October 26, 1982 · in the opinion

    Bunker v. National Gypsum Co. (1982)

    …validity of that limitation, this Court held: "We recognize the general rule that the legislature is the primary judge as to whether the time allowed by a statute of limitations is reasonable. Although the determination of…

  8. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · August 31, 2007 · in the opinion

    TH Agriculture and Nutrition, LLC. v. Akaiwa (2007)

    …Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution. Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution provides that "\[t\]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · March 10, 1999 · in the opinion

    Sorenson v. Allied Products Corp. (1999)

    …the purchase of White Farm's assets. 3) There has been no sufficient exception shown to overcome the general rule that a purchaser of assets is not liable for prior actions of a selling corporation. 4)…

  11. 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…

  12. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana · May 14, 2010 · in the opinion

    Aurand v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company (2010)

    …See Forry, 837 F.2d at 263 (emphasizing that FELA release interpretation must take the parties' intent into account and that "general language of release will not encompass claims of which the releasor was unaware"). Norfolk…

  13. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · November 20, 2007 · in the opinion

    Casper v. LE Isley & Sons, Inc. (2007)

    …the ODA, which is part of the worker's compensation scheme. More than twenty years after introduction of the Worker's Compensation Act ("WCA"), our General Assembly enacted the ODA, Ind.Code § 22-3-7, in…

  14. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · August 8, 2007 · in the opinion

    Roberts v. ACandS, Inc. (2007)

    …statute. Id. A. Article I, Section 23, the Privileges and Immunities Clause The Privileges and Immunities Clause provides: "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon…

  15. Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · March 31, 2005 · in the opinion

    Jurich v. John Crane, Inc. (2005)

    …diseases: mesothelioma (cancer affecting the lining of the lung), lung cancer (which invades the lung's airways), asbestosis, and general pleural effusions or fibrosis. See Appellee's App. p. 563 (article by expert witness Arnold Brody…

  16. 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…