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 5 of 6

  1. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · June 11, 2002 · in the opinion

    Crane, Inc. v. Scribner (2002)

    …time, can metastasize to other structures, including the diaphragm and the abdominal cavity. Although there is a background rate of mesothelioma in the general population that is not asbestos-related, it is very low. Dr. Samuel…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · March 13, 2001 · in the opinion

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

    …an asbestos lawsuit that was barred by limitations, res judicata, and a general release executed by the plaintiff in a prior lawsuit! In the wake of this monstrosity, the parties footing the bill and successive sets…

  3. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · October 4, 2019 · in the opinion

    Colvin v. Eaton Corporation (2019)

    …in which the party responds but the response is incomplete or otherwise objectionable. Rules Commentary at 436-37.\[3\] As a general matter, the first step in obtaining a judicial resolution of a discovery dispute is…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · July 17, 2017 · in the opinion

    Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (2017)

    …702(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, nor do they satisfy the Daubert factors, including "testability," "peer review," and "general acceptance" within the "relevant scientific community," Bresler, 855 F.3d at 195. On the contrary…

  5. 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…

  6. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 7, 1992 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong (1992)

    …283 Md. 296, 327, 389 A.2d 887, 905 (1978). Causation is a necessary element of any strict liability action. Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337, 344, 363 A.2d 955, 958 (1976). In…

  7. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · August 28, 2019 · in the opinion

    Crowe v. CSX Transportation, Inc. (2019)

    …and diagnosed with asbestosis after the 1972 Amendments, sought damages under LHWCA and general maritime law from the shipowner responsible for his asbestos exposure. The 1972 Amendments to the LHWCA "significantly restricted an injured longshoreman's…

  8. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · October 30, 2002 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois v. Gianotti (2002)

    …v. Martin, 14 Pa. D. & C.3d 325, 328 (1980)); and "the time of the accident" (Hendrix v. General Motors, 146 Cal.App.3d 296, 193 Cal.Rptr. 922, 927 (1983)). See Miles, 58 Md.App…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · October 18, 1995 · in the opinion

    ACandS, Inc. v. Godwin (1995)

    …we have now evidence of the consequences of exposure, but we do not have, in general, accurate measures of the levels of exposure occurring 20 or 30 years ago, which have given rise to these consequences…

  11. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · March 3, 2020 · in the opinion

    Pinner v. Pinner (2020)

    …541, 552 (1995), we noted that in contrast to general jurisdiction, an analysis of specific jurisdiction involves more of an expanded factual inquiry into the precise nature of the defendant's contacts with the forum, the…

  12. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · September 12, 1994 · in the opinion

    US Gypsum v. Baltimore (1994)

    …defendant's argument that certain deposition testimony was irrelevant as state of the art evidence merely because it was the testimony of an asbestos manufacturer's medical director rather than evidence from the general scientific community…

  13. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 1, 2021 · in the opinion

    Pifer v. Irwin Industrial Tool Co. (2021)

    …media evidence is authentic by a preponderance of the evidence," id. at 597—flows from the same general overarching principle: when determining authenticity, the court looks at the relative likelihood that the evidence is what it…

  14. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 11, 2018 · in the opinion

    Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Coates (2018)

    …PROCEEDINGS Until it closed in 1989, Marcantoni was a Baltimore-based general construction contracting company that specialized in highway and utility work for local governments in the greater Baltimore area. Its headquarters was located on Broening…

  15. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 23, 1999 · in the opinion

    Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. James (1999)

    …exposure to asbestos. The issue really is the more general one—whether forcing any movant to await final judgment makes the issue of inconvenient forum effectively non-reviewable. Our view as to that was, to some…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · June 12, 2020 · in the opinion

    Curtin v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (2020)

    …General personal jurisdiction exists if the defendant maintains "continuous and systematic" contacts with the forum state. Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416 (1984). With a corporate defendant, general jurisdiction typically exists…

  17. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 26, 2018 · in the opinion

    Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (2018)

    …support a jury conclusion that W&G was the primary insulation contractor working at LRHS. This is not a case in which evidence was presented showing the general presence of asbestos-containing products at LRHS. Accordingly…

  18. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 30, 1999 · in the opinion

    Porter Hayden Company v. Wyche (1999)

    …to the earliest diagnosis, from adenocarcinoma is 13.2 years." Although Porter Hayden seems to take issue in its reply brief with the use of general epidemiological testimony to draw inferences in specific cases, in Grimshaw…

  19. Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Maryland · March 31, 2014 · in the opinion

    National Union Fire Insurance Company OF Pittsburgh, PA. v. Porter Hayden Company (2014)

    …expert uses to reach his conclusion; the court does not evaluate the conclusion itself," Schaefer, 325 F.3d at 240, although "conclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from one another." General Elec. Co. v. Joiner…

  20. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · August 29, 1990 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1990)

    … 388 (1965), observing that the section had previously been adopted as a general principle in the duty to warn area by previous Maryland cases. Section 388 states as follows: Chattel Known to Be Dangerous for Intended…