138 results for “General Electric”, page 5 of 7
-
Court case · California Supreme Court · May 15, 2000
Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000)
…Court reversed the Court of Appeal, holding that Mitchell's second action (for mesothelioma) was not time-barred and that Asbestos Corporation made a general appearance in the first action, so the plaintiffs prevailed on both…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit · November 28, 1988 · in the opinion
Menne v. Celotex Corp. (1988)
…113 (3d Cir.1985) (evidence of general use of Pittsburgh Corning's Unibestos at job site was sufficient to allow jury to find Pittsburgh Corning to be a factor in causing the plaintiff's injury). \[13…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · February 20, 1990 · in the opinion
Grispo v. Eagle-Picher Indus. (In re Joint E. & S. Dist. New York Asbestos Lit., 1990)
682, § 4, which was enacted after Casabianca and which extended the limitations period for persons injured by asbestos, and found a general legislative disposition favoring compensation of victims of asbestos exposure. This aim, the court reasoned…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · October 18, 2001
Jurich v. Garlock, Inc. (2001)
…not sellers of asbestos-containing products. The general ten-year repose period violates the open courts clause of Article I, Section 12 as applied to a latent asbestos disease where exposure began before the Act or…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · January 4, 2023
Shellenberger v. Kreider Farms (2023)
…Failure to Warn; Premises Owner Liability; Employer and Contractor Liability, and Workers' Compensation; Wrongful Death and Survival Worksites: Kreider Farms dairy processing plant general manager of dairy plant operations Kreider Farms dairy processing plant 1972-1980
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · April 1, 2021
Lege v. Union Carbide Corporation (2021)
…affirmed the judgment for the Leges, including the 51% fault allocation to Birla. A jury's allocation of fault and general damages is reviewed for manifest error or abuse of discretion, and exposure need not be…
-
Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · April 16, 2009 · in the opinion
Nolan v. Weil-McLain (2009)
…determining whether a plaintiff has satisfied the burden of proof at trial. We began by reciting the "general rule in civil cases" that a plaintiff bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to establish each element…
-
Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · December 22, 1994 · in the opinion
Goss v. American Cyanamid Co. (1994)
…as a salesperson to the American Cyanamid plant that there should be an inference raised that he sold them asbestos containing products inasmuch as they were available to customers of Madsen & Howell in a general sense…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · August 22, 1991 · in the opinion
Lilley v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1991)
…asbestosis sufferers in general and specifically by a person with Mr. Lilley's type of symptoms. Id. at 41-46. Dr. Altschuler offered no testimony regarding Mr. Lilley's psychological profile nor the general psychological characteristics…
-
Court case · Iowa Court of Appeals · April 19, 2017 · in the opinion
Kinseth v. WEIL-McLAIN Company (2017)
…Hellman, P.L.C., Waterloo, for plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Richard E. Mull, Assistant Attorney General, for intervenor. Heard by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. BOWER, Judge…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · October 13, 2022 · in the opinion
Falgout v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (2022)
…Trevino v. General Dynamics Corporation, where the Fifth Circuit determined the first element of the Boyle defense was not satisfied when the government specification at issue only requires compliance with minimal or general standards, the Adams…
-
Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · November 5, 2007 · in the opinion
LaPOINTE v. 3M Company (2007)
…Heatbath's products contained asbestos. Furthermore, although they agree that in general, a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn of reasonably foreseeable dangers posed by another manufacturer's products, they assert that the duty…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · September 11, 2019 · in the opinion
Parfait v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated (2019)
…Co., 149 F.3d 387, 397 (5th Cir. 1998). Another feature distinguishing the federal officer removal statute from the general removal statute is that, unlike § 1441(a),\[6\] § 1442(a) must be liberally construed. See Watson…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 23, 1984 · in the opinion
Adams v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1984)
…a "less desirable longshoreman" in the future. Id. at 668. Bonura is inapposite to the case at bar. Bonura was decided under general maritime law, not Louisiana law. Furthermore, the instant record does not support an…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · October 1, 2014 · in the opinion
Smith v. Union Carbide Corp. (2014)
…at 3. "In general, a premises owner has a duty of exercising reasonable care for the safety of persons on its premises and a duty of not exposing such persons to unreasonable risks of injury or…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 28, 2008 · in the opinion
Garza v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2008)
…sufficient contact with the state for the court to assume either general or limited jurisdiction over it. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, asserting among other things that ACL had consented to jurisdiction by making a general appearance…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 30, 2024 · in the opinion
Brooks v. Mission Stucco Company (2024)
…4th 413, 424 (Wysinger).) However, "\[w\]ith a special verdict, unlike a general verdict or a general verdict with special findings, a reviewing court will not infer findings to support the verdict." (Singh, at p. 358…