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

Search

139 results for “General Electric”, page 6 of 7

  1. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · August 12, 1996 · in the opinion

    Nelson v. Keene Corp. (1996)

    …pleadings shall be according to the rules." 735 ILCS 5/2-201(a) (West 1994). General jurisdiction is invoked in the trial court when an action is filed and a summons is issued and served upon…

  2. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · April 23, 1998 · in the opinion

    Strickland v. Owens Corning (1998)

    …there was no evidence that Kaylo distributed by Defendant, or even Kaylo in general, accounted for most of Hagan's exposure to asbestos during that period or any period. It is clear that Owens Corning was…

  3. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · May 1, 1981 · in the opinion

    Fusco v. Johns-Manville Products Corp. (1981)

    …1975) is not in point. In Kellum, the court determined that the United States in general was not subject to state statutes of limitations; however, nothing in the opinion indicates that a state statute of limitations…

  4. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · December 29, 1988 · in the opinion

    Pecorino v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1988)

    …accrued to him not later than 1980. Furthermore, it should be noted that when the release was signed the Pecorinos did think about any exclusions or exceptions from the general, full and final release [\570] when…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · October 28, 1981 · in the opinion

    Fearson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)

    …The defendants' first argument is that plaintiff's "survival" claim is time-barred under the law of the District of Columbia, which provides that the general period of limitations is three years. See D.C.Code …

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 16, 1987 · in the opinion

    Hughes v. Western MacArthur Co. (1987)

    …issues and to apprise the defendant of the basis on which the plaintiff seeks recovery. (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 211-212 \[197 Cal. Rptr. 783…

  7. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · July 15, 1985 · in the opinion

    Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp. (1985)

    …any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit · July 30, 1982 · in the opinion

    Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1982)

    …first action may expressly reserve plaintiff's right to maintain second action). \[35\] Johns-Manville has catalogued an impressive array of court decisions exemplifying the general res judicata rule against splitting an indivisible cause of action…

  9. Court case · New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division · March 28, 2019 · in the opinion

    Brown v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2019)

    …and Allis-Chalmers, Con Ed's general contractor. The jury found that Brown had been exposed to asbestos at [\613] Ravenswood, that Con Ed had exercised supervision and control over workers at the powerhouse and had…

  10. Court case · Arizona Supreme Court · November 19, 1982 · in the opinion

    Nelson v. Industrial Com'n of Arizona (1982)

    …The new statute may cure problems such as the one presented by this case. Under the general provisions, the statute of limitations commences only when the workman knows or should know that "he has sustained a…

  11. Court case · Washington Supreme Court · August 9, 2007 · in the opinion

    Herring v. Texaco, Inc. (2007)

    …bar date order has preclusive effect, it would call into question the "right to maintain the action," which implicates an exception to the general rule that this court will decline to review arguments abandoned below. Id…

  12. Court case · California Supreme Court · January 25, 1999 · in the opinion

    Chevron USA, Inc. v. Wcab (1999)

    …health and safety and general welfare of any and all workers and those dependent upon them for support to the extent of relieving from the consequences of any injury or death incurred or sustained by workers…

  13. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · April 7, 1981 · in the opinion

    Clutter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1981)

    …does not apply to cases already filed before the amendment was enacted. Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution states that the "general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, ..." Section 1.58(A)(1…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina · July 3, 2014 · in the opinion

    Harris v. Ajax Boiler, Inc. (2014)

    …the overhaul of any of the defendants' boilers. Plaintiff has no evidence to show that defendants' boilers required the use of an asbestos-containing cement, in general, or Narcolite in particular, to affect a proper repair…

  15. Court case · Tennessee Supreme Court · March 1, 2001 · in the opinion

    Mackie v. Young Sales Corp. (2001)

    …related injury has resulted in the employee's death, workers' compensation benefits are to be paid to the surviving dependents of the employee. Jones v. General Accident Ins. Co. of America, 856 S.W.2d 133…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · February 11, 2015 · in the opinion

    Smith v. Union Carbide Corporation (2015)

    …509 U.S. at 596. As a general rule, questions relating to the basis and sources of an expert's opinion rather than its admissibility should be left for the jury's consideration. United States v…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 14, 1994 · in the opinion

    Coates v. AC and S, Inc. (1994)

    …599 So.2d at 1062 n. 13. \[10\] Johnstone was a case under the general maritime law which adopted Louisiana law as the law of the adjacent state. \[11\] Defendants contend that the use of OSHA…

  18. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · August 12, 1987 · in the opinion

    Wood v. Harry Harmon Insulation (1987)

    …usual occupations; (4) if the disease is an ordinary disease of life, the incidence of such a disease must be substantially higher in the particular occupation than in the general public. Hamilton v. Stamas Yachts, 496…

  19. Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 24, 2015 · in the opinion

    Best v. The William Powell Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2015)

    …engine, pumps, valves, steam traps, and turbines, and general cleanup. After he left the Navy, Best performed brake jobs on vehicles using asbestos-containing brakes. (NYSCEF 95). Defendants remaining in his action are Carrier Corporation, Goulds…

  20. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · August 28, 1995 · in the opinion

    Consorti v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1995)

    …s fees to fight asbestos litigation cases." The district court ruled that any well-informed citizen could possess general knowledge about Johns-Manville and that the report from the juror was not prejudicial to the defendants…