178 results for “General Electric”, page 7 of 9
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · January 18, 2000
Barnes v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (2000)
…plant; Barton Brands Distillery; Anaconda Aluminum, Louisville; Brown & Williamson general laborer and maintenance machinist Anaconda Aluminum Louisville 1963-1973; maintenance worker Brown & Williamson 1973-1982; worker in the whiskey filtration department Barton Brands Distillery 1959-1990
-
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 · U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina · March 29, 2018
Chesher v. 3M Company (2018)
…specific causation expert testimony, the plaintiff must present evidence of the amount and duration of asbestos dust exposure, and general allegations of periodic exposure over many years are not enough. Causation; Expert Testimony; Maritime Law and…
-
Court case · U.S. Supreme Court · February 29, 2012 · in the opinion
Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp. (2012)
…Ante, at 1268. That is insufficient. Not every state law that "could be said to affect tangentially" matters within the regulated field is pre-empted. English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 85, 110…
-
Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · August 31, 2017 · in the opinion
Cole v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company (2017)
…chemicals. Id. at 692. Each employee had previously executed a general release in the course of settling unrelated FELA claims. Id. These releases "appeared to settle all claims for all injuries past and future." Id. In…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · December 3, 2008 · in the opinion
Benard v. Eagle, Inc. (2008)
…exceptional circumstances, especially in light of the general speedy manner in which this Court handles applications for rehearing when this Court is notified of the urgency of the need for prompt action. In Centanni v. Ford…
-
Court case · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 2, 2017 · in the opinion
Poage v. Crane Co. (2017)
…must adduce sufficient evidence to support every essential element of a claim to make a submissible case). The general test for proximate cause is whether an injury is "a reasonable and probable consequence" of a defendant…
-
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 · New York Supreme Court · September 2, 2009 · in the opinion
Kofler v. AW Chesteron (2009)
…Inc. ceased manufacturing asbestos-containing gasket material in 1969 and 1973 respectively. Goodyear's General Counsel asserts that Goodyear stopped manufacturing asbestos-containing gaskets before 1974. (Responses to Plaintiffs' First Standard Set of Interrogatories by G…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Alabama · August 30, 2013 · in the opinion
Morgan v. Bill Vann Company, Inc. (2013)
…other defendants after May 19, 1979. But applicable law imposes on plaintiff the burden of proving exposure to each particular defendant's products, not just proving exposure to asbestos in general. See, e.g., Hoffman v…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · October 4, 2019 · in the opinion
Colvin v. Eaton Corporation (2019)
…in which the party responds but the response is incomplete or otherwise objectionable. Rules Commentary at 436-37.\[3\] As a general matter, the first step in obtaining a judicial resolution of a discovery dispute is…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · January 21, 1985 · in the opinion
Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1985)
…As a consequence, federal courts would become increasingly responsible for establishing a general federal tort law in a manner we think is inconsistent with the teachings of Erie and the logic behind our federal system. Cf…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · December 2, 2022 · in the opinion
Nuckols v. Consol. Rail Corp. (2022)
…Decedent reasonably did not know the purpose of the questioning. Perhaps Decedent could only have reasonably been expected to know of general impacts of the exposure to his health, but not that it could cause cancer…
-
Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · May 16, 2014 · in the opinion
Blackmon v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (2014)
…In Babbitt, 104 F.3d at 90-91, the plaintiff employees had executed general releases as part of the railroad's early retirement program, releasing the railroad from any claims "of any kind whatsoever, known or…
-
Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · June 30, 2015 · in the opinion
Russell v. Illinois Central Railroad Company (2015)
…322 U.S. at 631. \[41\] In Babbitt, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that general release claims executed as part of a railroad's early retirement program were not valid under FELA; instead, "\[t…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · February 14, 2014 · in the opinion
Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (2014)
…Salisbury, 2014 WL 345214, at [\8]. This court will follow that middle path. In general, consistent with the bare metal defense, a manufacturer is not liable for materials it did not supply. But a duty may…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 24, 2013 · in the opinion
Keeney v. AW Chesterton Company (2013)
…however, to the general rule that \"the voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a judgment or order is a bar to the prosecution of an appeal therefrom..." ... where the appellant's right to the accepted portion…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · June 29, 2007 · in the opinion
Aguirre v. Long Island Railroad Co. (2007)
…motion, the LIRR primarily argues that the plaintiffs failed at trial to proffer legally sufficient evidence to support their claims of general and specific causation with respect to their alleged exposure to asbestos and unidentified dusts…
-
Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · June 5, 1995 · in the opinion
Ripa v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1995)
…insufficient showing of notice of the many Saranac documents which the jury was led to believe were known to Owens-Corning which still marketed Kaylo with no warnings to the end users. As a general rule…
-
Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · July 22, 2019 · in the opinion
Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2019)
…the general duty of care includes a duty to warn when the manufacturer "knows or has reason to know" that its product "is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is…