96 results for “General Electric”, page 5 of 5
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · October 29, 2012 · in the opinion
City of Dayton v. AR Environmental, Inc. (2012)
…D. Ohio 1988) ("Asbestos exposure causes asbestosis. This fact was general knowledge in the asbestos industry in the State of Ohio at least after 1945"). If asbestos is not properly removed from a building before demolition…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · March 3, 2005 · in the opinion
Greenburg v. Hiner (2005)
…Plaintiffs complain that Defendants' representations concerning OC's financial state in general and their affirmative representations regarding the company's asbestos liability and the NSP in particular were fraudulent because they omitted material information necessary to…
-
Court case · Ohio Supreme Court · April 13, 1983 · in the opinion
O'stricker v. Jim Walter Corp. (1983)
…An action for bodily injury or injuring personal property shall be brought within two years after the cause thereof arose." In 1980, the General Assembly amended that statute by adding the following proviso, effective June 12…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · October 23, 2019 · in the opinion
Parker Hannifin Corp. v. Standard Motor Products, Inc. (2019)
…First, Standard Motors argues the Complaint should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) because Parker Hannifin has failed to establish the existence of either general or specific jurisdiction. Assuming there…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · March 19, 2009 · in the opinion
Riedel v. Consolidated Rail Corporation (2009)
…make it into the final draft. The court stated that "while the General Assembly may well have intended all asbestos-related cancer claims to be subject to the new legislation, that intent is not clearly expressed…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · February 5, 2009 · in the opinion
Adams v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2009)
…5268, 875 N.E.2d 596, the General Assembly enacted Amended Substitute House Bill 292 ("H.B. 292") in response to the asbestos litigation crisis in Ohio.\[3\] The key provisions are codified in R.C…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · September 4, 2014 · in the opinion
Tucker v. CompuDyne Corp. (2014)
…that the trial court properly ordered the disclosure of paragraphs 18(a) and (b). Because the attorney-client privilege is an exception to the general rules of disclosure, where it obstructs the search for relevant information…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · July 18, 1984 · in the opinion
Laster v. Celotex Corp. (1984)
…268 (1979) ("\[t\]he Surgeon General advises me that clinical experience indicates a person who smokes and has been exposed to asbestos faces a greater risk of developing asbestosis and of dying from a respiratory ailment…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · August 12, 2010 · in the opinion
Connell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2010)
…objects to the purported admission of answers to interrogatories of General Motors Corporation. Appellee did not offer into evidence, and the trial judge did not allow into evidence, any answers to interrogatories of General Motors Corporation…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · December 18, 2006 · in the opinion
Sequa Corporation v. Elyria Foundry Company (2006)
…at 238 (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted). As the court in Motorists observed, the Ohio General Assembly has since addressed the issue by creating a right of contribution between concurrent tortfeasors. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · December 13, 2017 · in the opinion
Alexander v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2017)
…are deemed to have been waived, and \[the Sixth Circuit\] will review such objections only to avoid a gross miscarriage of justice. Wiley at 226 (citations omitted). As a general matter, the district judge considering a…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · August 6, 2020 · in the opinion
Maddy v. Honeywell Internatl., Inc. (2020)
…tasks those employees regularly performed. Bonded Brake Program {¶ 23} To assist Flxible in starting a bonded brake business, Flxible's parent corporation, General Automotive Corporation, acquired a brake company located in Jackson, Michigan. At that time…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Common Pleas · January 12, 1987 · in the opinion
Lavelle v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1987)
…developing cancer in the future. Ohio courts have not specifically addressed the issue presented here but the general policy of this state has been to permit recovery for reasonable apprehension of a potential harm flowing from…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio · July 21, 2014 · in the opinion
Ridenour v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (2014)
…they waive any defense or bar to bringing such a suit. The State of Ohio, the Ohio Attorney General, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, and all defendants in this action agree that the statute…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · January 12, 2009 · in the opinion
Polanco v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2009)
…However, it was a matter of general knowledge from the 1960s onward that prolonged exposure to airborne asbestos could possibly be harmful." Affidavit of Dr. Edwin Holstein stating that asbestos fibers are potentially dangerous to the…