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

Search

767 results for “General Electric”, page 27 of 39

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 12, 1999 · in the opinion

    Overly v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. (1999)

    …Mississippi. Their general theory of negligence is that Ingalls knew or should have known about the dangers of asbestos and nevertheless exposed Robert to those dangers without providing any warning or protection. I. Exposure and causation…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 30, 2019 · in the opinion

    Lopez v. the Hillshire Brands Company (2019)

    …430, the more general instruction on substantial-factor causation: "A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · December 10, 2010 · in the opinion

    Albina Engine & Machine v. Director, Owcp (2010)

    …4\] ALJ Berlin also found that Dr. Zbinden's and Claimant's testimony only establishes that the Decedent thought he was exposed to asbestos in his shipyard employment in general, and not that Decedent specifically thought…

  4. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · September 28, 2011 · in the opinion

    Moeller v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC (2011)

    …creates "\such a risk' of an accident of the general nature of the one in question \that an ordinarily prudent company engaged in the manufacture' of such a product \would not have put it on the…

  5. 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…

  6. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · August 23, 2007 · in the opinion

    Rahmes v. Adience Inc. (2007)

    …contracting or selling or installation business? {¶ 23} "A. Yes. {¶ 24} "Q. And general idea, how far outside of Cincinnati, Cincinnati area would some of these operations take place? {¶ 25} "A. Do you have a time framework…

  7. Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · April 20, 2016 · in the opinion

    McKenzie v. AW Chesterson Co. (2016)

    …The Washington Supreme Court held that "the general rule" for common-law products liability cases that a product manufacturer has no duty "to warn of the dangers of exposure to asbestos in other manufacturers' products," articulated…

  8. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · May 9, 1991 · in the opinion

    Wehmeier v. Unr Industries, Inc. (1991)

    …OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Solomon stated it was his general impression that the level of asbestos used at UNARCO's Bloomington plant was not safe. Solomon stated he never saw chrysotile asbestos ground…

  9. Court case · Montana Workers' Comp. Court · December 31, 2013 · in the opinion

    Peterson v. Liberty NW Ins. Corp. (2013)

    … however, after moving to Libby he practiced more general medicine.\[92\] Dr. Black started the CARD clinic in July 2000\[93\] to meet the needs of the public once it became evident there was a community…

  10. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · August 13, 1982 · in the opinion

    Neubauer v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1982)

    …to his health. We thus regard Wisconsin Natural Gas to be an exceptional application of the more general rule that the cause of action accrues when the asbestos-caused disease becomes diagnosable — e.g., provable by…

  11. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · August 1, 1989 · in the opinion

    Mauro v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1989)

    …in the evaluation of the damage claim against the defendant. In this way, to the extent that men can achieve justice through general rules, a just balance of the warring interests is accomplished. \[Citations omitted\]. Cf…

  12. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · January 25, 1991 · in the opinion

    Moran v. G. & WH Corson, Inc. (1991)

    …with Bob Hinks. Q. About that knowledge? A. A general discussion, a light general thing that I had read about in the paper or, you know, not actually getting into detail. Q. You read about what…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · September 23, 2020 · in the opinion

    Pruitt v. Gardner Denver (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2020)

    …The Court has reviewed the affidavit of Captain Moore and his opinion that: The 1972 general information book records one Gardner Denver horizontal centrifugal emergency fire pump driven by a diesel engine was installed in the…

  14. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · March 15, 2007 · in the opinion

    Bugosh v. Allen Refractories Co. (2007)

    …approach a situation to which the term judicial estoppel is applicable. ¶ 28 The doctrine of judicial estoppel holds that "\[a\]s a general rule, a party to an action is estopped from assuming a position inconsistent…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · September 26, 2024 · in the opinion

    Smargisso v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2024)

    …claims specifically—the claims at issue here. (Dkt. No. 139 at 13.) Thus, Plaintiffs fail to establish that the relief sought has been historically available under general maritime law. See Elorreaga v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., No…

  16. Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · April 19, 2007 · in the opinion

    Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Company, Inc. (2007)

    …"Thus, the imposition of a legal duty reflects society's contemporary policies and social requirements concerning the right of individuals and the general public to be protected from another's act or conduct." Bradshaw, 854 S…

  17. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · July 22, 1988 · in the opinion

    Millison v. EI du Pont de Nemours (1988)

    …Ed. 610, 617 (1939); U.S. v. Trotter, 529, F.2d 806 (3d Cir.1976); State v. General Restoration Co., 42 N.J. 366, 375 (1964); State v. Sherwin, 127 N.J. Super. 370 (App.Div…

  18. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · July 26, 2007 · in the opinion

    Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Stephens (2007)

    …a union composed of plasterers, cement masons, and shophands. The study described plasterers' job duties as follows: Plasterers, in general, are responsible for all interior and exterior plastering of drywall, cement, stucco, and stone imitation as…

  19. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · July 6, 2018 · in the opinion

    Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. v. Rossello (2018)

    …defendants; January 4, 2016 was the deadline for the plaintiff to name his "most likely to use" general product identification fact witnesses from the original fact witness list who have been previously deposed; January 18, 2016…

  20. Court case · South Carolina Court of Appeals · January 5, 2022 · in the opinion

    Covil Corporation EX rel. Protopapas v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (2022)

    …s operations allegedly exposed persons to asbestos, resulting in claims and lawsuits against it. Penn insured Covil under comprehensive general liability policies between March 1986 and March 1988. One of the lawsuits against Covil, Rollins v…