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

Search

53 results for “General Electric”, page 3 of 3

  1. Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · July 13, 2020 · in the opinion

    Backe v. AW Kuettel & Sons, Inc. (2020)

    …LLC, 884 N.W.2d 321, 328 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). Caselaw recognizes two distinct types of personal jurisdiction: "general" jurisdiction and "specific" jurisdiction. Valspar, 495 N.W.2d at 411. "Personal jurisdiction refers to a…

  2. Court case · New York Supreme Court · June 17, 2013 · in the opinion

    Logan v. AP Moller-Maersk, Inc. (2013)

    …warn Mr. Logan of the dangers associated with Calidria because it provided adequate warnings to GP. Plaintiffs submit that apart from special orders and test shipments which were not available to the general public, all asbestos…

  3. Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 2, 2022 · in the opinion

    Viglietta v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2022)

    …that the toxin is capable of causing the particular illness (general causation) and that plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the illness (specific causation) (internal citations omitted)" (Nemeth v Brenntag North…

  4. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · September 23, 2020 · in the opinion

    Bagwell v. Union Carbide Corporation (2020)

    …art. 1813(E) provides: "When the answers \[to interrogatories\] are inconsistent with each other and one or more is likewise inconsistent with the general verdict, the count shall not direct the entry of judgment but may…

  5. Court case · Mississippi Supreme Court · June 5, 2014 · in the opinion

    Union Carbide Corporation v. Nix (2014)

    …known or potential rate of error; whether there are standards controlling the technique's operation; and whether the theory or technique enjoys general acceptance within a relevant scientific community. Id. at 37. The inquiry is flexible…

  6. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · June 30, 2022 · in the opinion

    Fowler v. Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (2022)

    …provides: 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 directly or may rely on the…

  7. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · November 10, 2004 · in the opinion

    Alexander v. Thiokol Corp. (2004)

    …cancer, while others have differing ailments; thus, the reason for this case. Plaintiffs filed suit for general, specific and punitive damages, as well as medical monitoring. PROCEDURAL FACTS Plaintiffs filed suit on July 9, 1999, alleging…

  8. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · December 13, 2014 · in the opinion

    Robertson v. Doug Ashy Building Materials, Inc. (2014)

    …to the trial court, Dr. Mark's testimony simply "does not carry the day" because it is of a general nature, and because plaintiffs did not have any evidence of specific causation, the court could not…

  9. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · April 6, 2023 · in the opinion

    Taylor v. BASF Catalysts, LLC (2023)

    …According to Bevan, the case was dismissed because they were unable to find a co-worker at General Tire who could testify about the decedent's occupational exposure to asbestos. The Clark Lawsuit {¶ 15} On October…

  10. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · October 24, 2012 · in the opinion

    Rich v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2012)

    …Georgia plant. Rather, Lehnert's testimony was about Georgia Pacific's general use of asbestos, including its decision to remove asbestos from its products, the notice and information that they had at the time they made…

  11. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit · June 19, 1991 · in the opinion

    Cochran v. EI DuPont de Nemours (1991)

    …2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). II. Federal Admiralty and General Maritime Jurisdiction The judicial power of the United States extends to "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." U.S. Const. Art. III…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · October 28, 2011 · in the opinion

    Howard v. AW Chesterton Co. (2011)

    …articles in an attempt to support their claims that respirable fibers were present. However much of this information is irrelevant to this case in general and ACE specifically. The simple fact remains that \[Appellants'\] attempt to…