139 results for “General Electric”, page 7 of 7
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · November 9, 2001 · in the opinion
Emery v. Owens-Corporation (2001)
…suitable references to plaintiff's closing argument), we issue a precautionary warning that the general reference to "witnesses" in its admissibility assertion skirts the outer perimeter of Rule 2-12.4. \[9\] See La. Acts 1979…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · May 30, 1980 · in the opinion
Migues v. Nicolet Industries, Inc. (1980)
…in recognition of certain policy concerns, pro rata apportionment between joint tortfeasors. The Court has noted with some emphasis the later decision of the Texas Supreme Court in General Motors Corporation v. Simmons, 558 S.W…
-
Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · October 5, 2022 · in the opinion
Miller v. Agripac, Inc. (2022)
…to joint and several liability for plaintiffs' damages, the jury was not asked to apportion liability among the defendants. The court entered a general judgment in plaintiffs' favor, which included a money award requiring defendant to…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · December 7, 1981 · in the opinion
Migues v. Fibreboard Corp. (1981)
…S.Ct. 687, 42 L.Ed.2d 688 (1974); and has been adopted by the Texas courts, see Turner v. General Motors Corporation, 584 S.W.2d 844, 851 (Tex.1979); Lopez v. Aro Corp., 584…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · September 24, 1987 · in the opinion
VaSalle v. Celotex Corp. (1987)
…Defendants assert that plaintiff's causes of action accrued in 1972 when VaSalle discovered that he was suffering from asbestosis. • 1, 2 As a general rule, when a plaintiff suffers an obvious injury from a single…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · September 16, 1983 · in the opinion
Thompson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983)
…Thompson can advance in support of his claim that Louisiana would adopt either if presented his case is a supposed general tendency or trend on the part of Louisiana courts to expand the liability of manufacturers…
-
Court case · Minnesota Court of Appeals · April 6, 1999 · in the opinion
Tester v. American Standard, Inc. (1999)
…604.02, subd. 3 (1998), provides an exception to this general rule and allows an at-fault plaintiff to recover from a less-at-fault defendant in products liability cases. Section 604.02, subdivision 3, provides…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · June 15, 1998 · in the opinion
Consorti v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (In Re Joint Eastern and Southern Dist. Asbestos, 1998)
…as a mechanical formula, awards based on the number of months of suffering \[have been\] criticized ..., it nevertheless represents a general pattern to the New York cases." Id. The Dollas court, nonetheless, rejected the simplistic monthly…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit · August 8, 1991 · in the opinion
Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (1991)
…On appeal from the judgment subsequently entered, OCF offers four general challenges: (1) the district court erred in denying its initial motion for a directed verdict and later motion to dismiss the complaint; (2) the district…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · March 30, 1992 · in the opinion
Borman v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (1992)
…persons with a significant smoking history\] as compared with the non-smokers and ... the non-asbestos exposed folks in the general population? A Up to 12 — up to 12 to 15 times the group you compared…
-
Court case · Utah Supreme Court · September 29, 1987 · in the opinion
Tisco Intermountain v. Industrial Com'n of Utah (1987)
…to asbestos products from 1971 until his death. Rather, they spoke only in very general terms. When asked if she had any knowledge of the insulation products used by Tisco, Mrs. Werner responded: "Not an awfully…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · August 8, 2007 · in the opinion
Roberts v. ACandS, Inc. (2007)
…statute. Id. A. Article I, Section 23, the Privileges and Immunities Clause The Privileges and Immunities Clause provides: "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of New York · August 15, 2012 · in the opinion
Garner v. Ngc Bodily Injury Trust (2012)
…injuries did not manifest within three years of exposure, and thus, would have otherwise been barred. See Jensen v. General Elec. Co., 82 N.Y.2d 77, 84 (1993). The statute provides: the three year period…
-
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 · Virginia Supreme Court · November 21, 1979 · in the opinion
Caudle-Hyatt, Inc. v. Mixon (1979)
…husband's earnings. It is highly unlikely that the General Assembly intended to restrict the conclusive presumption of total dependency to instances where the spouse had demonstrated that he or she was wholly dependent. Such a…
-
Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · November 28, 1978 · in the opinion
Daniels v. Combustion Engineering, Inc. (1978)
… and fifth, the legal existence of the first suit. "The general rules above laid down have been held applicable, notwithstanding the fact that one suit is at law and the other in equity. Because a deposition…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 6, 2013 · in the opinion
Peraica v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2013)
…such as Peraica were at high risk of injury due to high-dose asbestos exposure from removing ACMs from Defendant's boilers (far more than a general awareness of the linkage between asbestos exposure and disease)…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin · September 30, 2016 · in the opinion
Suoja v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2016)
…has not met his burden of establishing that this exposure was a substantial factor in causing Suoja's mesothelioma. [\1207] Defendant does not dispute as a general matter that exposure to asbestos caused Suoja's mesothelioma…
-
Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · March 6, 1984 · in the opinion
Copeland v. Celotex Corp. (1984)
…This defect is the cause of the alleged injury, and in a very general sense its existence must constitute under the respective theories of recovery a breach of a duty, a breach of a warranty and…