235 results for “General Electric”, page 7 of 12
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · June 26, 2014 · in the opinion
Graver v. Foster Wheeler Corp. (2014)
…Cigna Corp., 74 A.3d 179, 182 (Pa.Super.2013) (citation omitted). The relevant statute of repose states in part: (a) General rule. Except as provided in subsection (b), a civil action or proceeding against any…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · August 13, 1982 · in the opinion
Gill v. Pacor, Inc. (1982)
…services, society. These are the things that are encompassed in the general description or the technical word that we use as "consortium." That is the nature of Mrs. Gill's claim; that by virtue of the…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · December 28, 2007 · in the opinion
Gregg v. VJ Auto Parts Company (2007)
…of Mr. Gregg's exposure concretely, he maintains that the more general references in the testimony are circumstantial evidence that Mr. Gregg performed brake changes with asbestos-containing products from Appellant's store more frequently. Further…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · May 25, 1993 · in the opinion
Dempsey v. Pacor, Inc. (1993)
…1094 (1991). Appellees acknowledge this general pronouncement of law but contend that retroactive application should only occur when the issue at the center of the change in law has been properly preserved for review. Certainly appellants…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · January 22, 1997 · in the opinion
Sharpless v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1997)
…pains. In that case, the patient died after the hospital failed to provide an operable electrocardiogram machine. The plaintiff's expert witness in Bashline offered an opinion that if the hospital employed certain methods and treatment…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · September 30, 1996
Blase v. Allied Signal Inc. (1996)
Mildred Blase sued several companies after the death of her husband, Harold Blase, an auto mechanic at Bell of Pennsylvania. She claimed that working with the defendants' products, which allegedly contained asbestos, caused his lung cancer and…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 30, 2010
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2010)
…causation testimony on scientific theories the parties never raised and no expert supported, and extrapolation from higher to lower doses and the absence of supporting epidemiology do not by themselves defeat general acceptance. Causation; Expert Testimony…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2010
Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)
The court denied all four Daubert motions, allowing plaintiffs' causation experts (Brody, limited to general causation, and Legier), defense industrial hygienist Dyson's dose reconstruction testimony, and defendants' causation experts to testify. Expert testimony is admissible…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 23, 2018
Gilbert v. Advance Auto Parts (2018)
…specific defendant's product was frequent, regular and proximate; general testimony that a parts store or vehicle make was used at the workplace, without evidence tying the decedent to that product, is too speculative to survive…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · August 12, 2010
McGUFFIE v. Mead Corp. (2010)
…for its subsidiary's acts absent alter-ego control or proof that it assumed a duty of workplace safety, and general safety oversight and correspondence do not show such an assumption. Premises Owner Liability; Successor Liability…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 17, 2024
Constantine v. Lenox Instrument Co., Inc. (2024)
…order on delay damages, finding three periods wrongly excluded and remanding. A trial court may limit a toxicologist who is not a physician and has no experience diagnosing patients to general causation. Under Pa.R.Civ…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · March 24, 2020
Schrader v. Ameron International Corporation (2020)
…Schrader prevailed on that point. A trial court abuses its discretion when it denies a jury's specific request to view a duly admitted exhibit based only on a general preference and speculation about prolonged deliberations…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · February 14, 2012
Senger v. AH Bennett Company (2012)
…must raise a genuine issue of fact that exposure to the defendant's product proximately caused the injury. General coworker testimony about refinery work, which does not tie a particular decedent to the defendant's product…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · February 15, 2012
Various Plaintiffs v. Various Defendants (2012)
…a genuine issue of material fact that exposure to the defendant's product proximately caused the injury. General testimony about the refinery and its work practices, without evidence tying a decedent to the defendant's product…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court · July 18, 2016
City of Williamsport v. Workers'compensation Appeal Board (2016)
…carcinogen. An expert's opinion on exposure must rest on facts in the record, not on general assumptions about the firefighting profession. Expert Testimony Worksites: City of Williamsport fire department; City of Williamsport fire department, Williamsport…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · December 17, 2014
Crawford v. Alcoa (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2014)
…the substances to Crawford's specific lung diseases. Her doctor filed three affidavits that discussed contaminants in general terms and did not tie them to her specific disease. The District Court dismissed the case with prejudice…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 30, 2004
Gilbert v. Monsey Products Co. (2004)
…exposure was regular and frequent enough to cause the injury was a question for the jury. The court vacated the judgments and remanded. One judge concurred in the result, finding Eckenrod's general principles still applicable.
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · October 31, 2022
In re All Matters Related TO North American Refractories Company (2022)
…or the common law. The court found nothing improper in parties redacting exhibits they chose to introduce. It added that, even if access applied, it would have been limited to claimant names and general medical condition.
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · May 23, 2012 · in the opinion
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2012)
He did not question the pathologist's opinion in terms of general causation, but he expressed circumspection concerning how that opinion translated to substantial-factor causation. See N.T., Aug. 17, 2005, at 105. For example…
-
Court case · U.S. Supreme Court · June 25, 1997 · in the opinion
Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor (1997)
"But the settlement does more than simply provide a general recovery fund," the Court of Appeals immediately added; "\[r\]ather, it makes important judgments on how recovery is to be allocated among different kinds of plaintiffs…