292 results for “General Electric”, page 6 of 15
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 2, 2012
Rollin v. Foster Wheeler, LLC (2012)
…asbestos products. Failure to Warn; The Bare-Metal Defense; Sophisticated User and Intermediary Defenses; Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: Mobil Torrance refinery (General Petroleum); Mobil Oil Torrance refinery, FCC unit, Torrance stillsman in the FCC unit…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 13, 2012
Casey v. Perini Corporation (2012)
The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for general contractor Perini Corporation against plaintiffs Patricia and John Casey, holding the trial court properly excluded plaintiffs' expert declaration and that plaintiffs offered only speculation about exposure. An…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 10, 2006
Boyle v. Certainteed Corporation (2006)
…judgment for CertainTeed, holding San Francisco's General Order No. 157 invalid, and remanded; plaintiffs recovered costs. A local court's general order allowing expedited summary judgment in asbestos cases on 60 days' notice, supported only…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2019
Mettias v. The Pep Boys Manny, Moe & Jack of California (Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2019)
…refusal to give general negligence instructions and the misstatements in reading the instructions caused no prejudicial error. A party is entitled to instructions on every theory supported by substantial evidence, but not to general negligence instructions…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 20, 2021
Sweikhart v. Akebono Brake Industry Co. (2021)
…subsidiary's agent. Under California law, a foreign corporation may be served through its "general manager in this state," which includes its wholly-owned domestic subsidiary's agent for service, so Hague Convention procedures need not…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 30, 2021
Toy v. Armstrong Int'l (In re Asbestos, 2021)
…motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert Dr. Brody (he may give general but not specific causation testimony) and denied Warren Pumps' and Honeywell's motion to exclude "every exposure" testimony, without prejudice to renewed objections at trial…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 23, 2018
Rudolph v. Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. (2018)
…his wife Pamela sued Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. (R&S), a general contracting company started by Allen's father. They alleged Allen developed mesothelioma from asbestos. According to the complaint, he was exposed as a child…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 19, 2021
Cahill Construction Company v. Superior Court of Alameda County (2021)
…the petition. It held the statute's language and legislative history set a firm cap that courts cannot exceed, including through the general protective-order statute. It also found no as-applied due process violation, because…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 14, 2017
Duty v. Trz Realty, LLC (2017)
…saying asbestos causes colon cancer. After a hearing, the trial court found he was not qualified on general or specific causation, mainly because he was not an epidemiologist or colorectal specialist. Plaintiffs then conceded they lacked…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · December 14, 1983
Skip Fordyce, Inc. v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (1983)
…and multiple-level hearsay from a doctor's report, a general pamphlet and an unsupported 'admission' that brake linings contain asbestos does not supply it. Medical opinions based on statistical studies can be substantial evidence of…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 1, 2023
Haeck v. 3M Company (2023)
…removal. The court agreed. Under Ninth Circuit precedent (Self v. General Motors), a case becomes removable only through a voluntary act by the plaintiff. Because the summary judgment for Allied Fluid was involuntary from Plaintiffs' perspective…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 19, 1997
Barr v. ACandS, Inc. (1997)
…2, allows suit within one year after disability. Following Darden v. General Motors, the Court of Appeal held that filing the first suit started the one-year period for all potentially responsible defendants, named or not…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 24, 2015
Quiroz v. BNSF Railway Company (2015)
…found that Thoms did not know whether the brake shoes contained asbestos, and the plaintiffs' interrogatory answers and work history sheet gave only general statements. The plaintiffs' industrial hygienist gave no facts showing that the brakes…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 27, 1990
Chevron USA v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (1990)
…mesothelioma was not an outgrowth of the asbestosis. It also held that a 1986 California Supreme Court case, General Foundry, did not require a single date of injury. It denied the family's request for attorney…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 15, 1990
Uram v. Abex Corp. (1990)
…run long before 1987. For Virginia's consortium claim, the court applied the general one-year statute with a discovery rule. It found she should likewise have suspected the cause in 1976, so her claim was…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 17, 2015 · in the opinion
Melendrez v. Ameron International Corporation (2015)
In general, for the purposes of the causation requirement in workers' compensation, it is sufficient if the connection between work and the injury be a contributing cause of the injury. . . .' \[Citations.\]" (Id. at pp. 298-299…
-
Court case · California Supreme Court · December 1, 2016 · in the opinion
Kesner v. Superior Court and Haver (2016)
781.) In general, internalizing the cost of injuries caused by a particular behavior will induce changes in that behavior to make it safer. That consideration may be "outweighed, for a category of negligent conduct, by laws…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 18, 2011 · in the opinion
Fontes v. Interstate Brands Corporation (2011)
…also D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 21-22.) The Fonteses' General Rule 29 Case Report, General Rule 13 response to interrogatory number 26, and Mr. Fontes's deposition testimony…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 17, 1995 · in the opinion
Sparks v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1995)
…the court was confronted with a complicated claim that General Motors' defective design of the wheel assembly and front floorboard enhanced the injuries the plaintiff suffered when another car collided with the left front wheel area…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 19, 2018
Hubbard v. California Water Service Company (2018)
…the party asserting the exception to a hirer's general non-liability for a contractor's employees bears the burden of proving that the contractor neither knew nor could reasonably be expected to know of the…