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

Search

109 results for “General Electric”, page 4 of 6

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · April 6, 2012

    Jones v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (2012)

    …the plausibility standard that applies to complaints. It pointed to a 1906 Maryland general consent statute and earlier decisions in the district describing Aberdeen Proving Ground as a federal enclave. It found federal jurisdiction plausible and…

  2. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 15, 2019

    Ament v. John Crane-Houdalille, Inc. (2019)

    …Dr. Arthur Frank, had reviewed no product information and gave only general opinions. The trial court struck his specific causation testimony for lack of a factual basis and entered judgment for Crane. The Court of Special…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · April 27, 2001

    Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Miles & Stockbridge (2001)

    …The settlement was also below the highest likely verdict. The court found no proof that Parler's handling of a general release caused harm. It entered summary judgment for Parler and awarded Royal $1,655,916…

  4. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · December 14, 2004 · in the opinion

    Rourke v. Amchem Products, Inc. (2004)

    The general rule should be that in cases where a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action or where, either for the reasons discussed above or for other reasons, the application of offensive estoppel…

  5. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 10, 1992 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1992)

    Castleman also testified that some general-knowledge encyclopedias included notes on asbestosis as early as 1939 or 1940. The Court of Special Appeals reviewed this evidence and held that "\[a\] jury ... could reasonably infer that Porter…

  6. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 26, 2005 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook (2005)

    685 (2000), addressing "whether the general rule (that no loss of consortium claim exists for an ante-nuptial tort) applies in cases where, at the time of the marriage, the injury to the spouse is latent…

  7. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 26, 2005 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook (2005)

    685 (2000), addressing "whether the general rule (that no loss of consortium claim exists for an ante-nuptial tort) applies in cases where, at the time of the marriage, the injury to the spouse is latent…

  8. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · September 12, 1991

    Mitchell, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty (1991)

    …the insured, was entitled to a defense and indemnity because coverage is triggered at least by exposure to its asbestos products during the policy period. Under a standard form comprehensive general liability policy, "bodily injury" from…

  9. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · May 15, 1998 · in the opinion

    Porter Hayden v. Bullinger (1998)

    …verdict in favor of the hirer. The trial proceeded, resulting in judgments in favor of the plaintiff against the adverse driver and his general employer. On the plaintiff's appeal, the Court vacated the judgment in…

  10. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · July 5, 2016 · in the opinion

    RJ Reynolds Tobacco v. Stidham (2016)

    …shortly but will add first our concern as to whether, if that policy is a general one that the court intends [\13] to apply in every synergy case, without regard to particular circumstances of the case…

  11. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · November 16, 2009

    Csr, Limited v. Taylor (2009)

    …to residents. Foreseeability that its products will arrive and cause injury, a customer's choice of port, and general trade advertising do not satisfy this. Personal Jurisdiction; Venue, Removal and Transfer Worksites: Port of Baltimore; Port…

  12. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · June 29, 2012 · in the opinion

    Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2012)

    …we agree with Ford's contention that "case reports" and other anecdotal evidence are not probative of either general or actual causation,\[14\] but we must point out that Ford severely overstates the strength of its…

  13. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 9, 2008 · in the opinion

    Taylor v. Csr Limited (2008)

    …of Baltimore for sugar deliveries from which CSR derived substantial revenue. Taylor next contends that she presented evidence satisfying the due process requirements for Maryland's exercise of both specific and general personal jurisdiction over CSR…

  14. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · November 21, 1978 · in the opinion

    Harig v. Johns-Manville Products (1978)

    …coupled with the peculiarly harsh consequences of adherence to the general rule of accrual from the date of the "wrong," prompted our predecessors to recognize the discovery principle in determining when a cause of action accrues…

  15. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · May 31, 2022 · in the opinion

    Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. Pifer (2022)

    …be produced. Irwin's counsel also argued that the Estate could not prove its strict liability manufacturing defect claim because it could not satisfy factors set forth in Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337…

  16. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · July 15, 2020 · in the opinion

    Coates v. Ford Motor Company (2020)

    …of a summary judgment motion, as well as foregoing the ruling on such a motion either temporarily until later in the proceedings or for resolution by trial of the general issue, involves not only pure legal…

  17. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 3, 2020 · in the opinion

    Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company (2020)

    …INSURANCE LAW—INDEMNITY—COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY POLICIES—APPORTIONMENT—PRO RATA—TRIGGER OF COVERAGE—INJURY-IN-FACT TRIGGER—CONTINUOUS TRIGGER The Court of Appeals held that damages from a continuous bodily injury judgment must be allocated on…

  18. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · February 25, 1999 · in the opinion

    Owens Corning v. Walatka (1999)

    …For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the general rule imposing the burden on the plaintiff should be applied in this case against appellees. A. THE BURDEN TO ESTABLISH THAT THE STATUTORY CAP DOES NOT…

  19. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · June 3, 1985 · in the opinion

    Smith v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1985)

    …the Smiths' theory, a separate three-year period beginning with award would govern limitations "as to such employee." We do not believe the General Assembly intended so great a fragmentation of third-party actions, particularly when …

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · September 9, 2005 · in the opinion

    National Union Fire Insurance Company OF Pittsburgh v. Porter Hayden Company (2005)

    …large number of asbestos-related bodily injury claims filed against it. Wallace & Gale had purchased comprehensive general liability policies and excess policies from numerous insurers during the decades it installed asbestos-containing insulation materials. In 1994…