532 results for “General Electric”, page 21 of 27
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · December 9, 2019 · in the opinion
Shaffer v. AW Chesterton Co. (2019)
…and loss of consortium. The complaint also set forth federal claims under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness under general maritime law against only some of the parties. The complaint was amended three times to add and…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 21, 2012 · in the opinion
Robinson v. Ssw, Inc. (2012)
…to specific enumerated "chapters and sections ... to the exclusion of the law of the jurisdiction in which they are [\600] incorporated." These specific enumerated provisions include neither chapter 2 in general nor section 2010 in particular. (…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · June 3, 1985 · in the opinion
Gideon v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)
…Court has expressly held, in Turner v. General Motors Corporation,\[36\] that, although evidence of the expectations of the ordinary consumer and the care of a prudent manufacturer may be introduced at trial, "henceforth in the…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · June 6, 2013 · in the opinion
Joyner v. AC & R. Insulation Co. (2013)
…concluded that jurisdictional disclaimers are invalid in the context of the federal officer removal statute (as opposed to the general removal statute) for two related reasons. "First, the presumption under the general removal statute favors remand…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · January 31, 2011 · in the opinion
Morgan v. Aurora Pump Co. (2011)
…NASH ENGINEERING COMPANY; GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. (sued individually and as successor-in- interest to GARLOCK, INC. and US GASKET CO.); GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS, INC.; HARDIE-TYNES, LLC. (sued…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 28, 2008 · in the opinion
Garza v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2008)
…sufficient contact with the state for the court to assume either general or limited jurisdiction over it. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, asserting among other things that ACL had consented to jurisdiction by making a general appearance…
-
Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · July 22, 2019 · in the opinion
Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2019)
…the general duty of care includes a duty to warn when the manufacturer "knows or has reason to know" that its product "is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 7, 2011 · in the opinion
Kelemen v. John Crane, Inc. (2011)
…erroneous instruction. . . ."'" (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 574.) When determining whether an error of instruction and/or instructional omission was prejudicial, the court must evaluate the state of the evidence, the…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · May 3, 2004 · in the opinion
Bartel v. John Crane, Inc. (2004)
…§§ 688, et seq., the General Admiralty and Maritime law, and traditional product liability law. ECF No. 1. Lindstrom claims that he contracted this disease as a result of his work-life exposures to asbestos and asbestos…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 30, 2017 · in the opinion
Johnson v. Dock (2017)
…response, the plaintiff provided "little more than general allegations against" the defendant and did "not state specific facts showing that \[the plaintiff\] was actually exposed to asbestos-containing material from \[the defendant's\] products." (Ibid., italics…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 15, 2010 · in the opinion
Union Carbide Corporation v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2010)
…conflicting inference we must ignore. (Kuhn v. Department of General Services (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1632-1633 \[all reasonable inferences in favor of the judgment must be indulged\].) II. The use of John's…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 5, 2016 · in the opinion
Watkins v. Affinia Group (2016)
…been tested, (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review, (3) whether there is a known or potential rate of error, and (4) whether the methodology has gained general acceptance. Id. at 593-594, 113…
-
Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · December 22, 1989 · in the opinion
Sholtis v. American Cyanamid Co. (1989)
…theory of non-identification liability is acceptable in New Jersey. \[9\] The court "reserve\[d\] decision on the general appropriateness of including products with different degrees of risk in a market-share analysis." 116 N.J…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida · September 3, 2024 · in the opinion
Edmonds v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2024)
…Zhang's two key challenged statements. The Court agrees with Defendants on one general point. The "cumulative exposure theory," to the extent it holds that even a de minimis exposure to asbestos can be a substantial…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 23, 2019 · in the opinion
Chevron Oronite Company v. Jacobs Field Services North America, Inc. (2019)
…amount was excessive in light of the facts known or reasonably available to the insured at the time of settlement. The burden should, in general, be on the insurer, since its breach of contract \[i.e.…
-
Court case · Arkansas Court of Appeals · April 3, 1985 · in the opinion
Alcoa v. Vann (1985)
… 81-1314(5)(iii) (Repl. 1976) provides: No compensation shall be payable for any ordinary disease of life to which the general public is exposed. These statutes require that a causal connection between the claimant's…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · December 20, 2023 · in the opinion
Gillis v. Pbv Inc. (2023)
…Ct. 1026, 1030, 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1987) (quotations and citations omitted). "Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific." Cossaboon v. Maine Med. Ctr., 600 F.3d 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2010). Specific jurisdiction…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · September 24, 2018 · in the opinion
Macaluso v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2018)
…awards for wrongful death and pain and suffering deviate materially from reasonable compensation. C — After remitting the verdict, the jury's award must be reduced by offsets pursuant to General Obligations Law § 15-108. These errors…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia · September 28, 2018 · in the opinion
Goodrich v. John Crane, Inc. (2018)
…or videotapes of insulated pipes or systems on ships and insinuating\] that the insulation \[shown\] . . . was asbestos, in general, or amosite asbestos, in particular and that Mr. Goodrich would have been exposed to friable asbestos from. …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana · February 12, 2025 · in the opinion
Alford v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (2025)
…Supreme Court in Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. ("Halphen I"): There is general agreement upon the most basic principles of strict tort products liability. In order to recover from a manufacturer, the plaintiff must prove…