228 results for “General Electric”, page 9 of 12
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 19, 2012 · in the opinion
Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2012)
…1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1137-1138 \[74 Cal.Rptr.2d 510\] (Weeks).) We give only a general summary of the facts relating to liability and compensatory damages, because the details are not germane to…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · August 11, 2022 · in the opinion
Walls v. Ford Motor Company (2022)
…motion is GRANTED with respect to Finkelstein's testimony concerning specific causation. Defendants' motion is DENIED with respect to Finkelstein's testimony concerning general causation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas · March 31, 2025 · in the opinion
Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance Co. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. (2025)
…such determinations should be driven by the contract language—language that obviously may vary from policy to policy." Id. at 30. That caveat accords with the general rule that "\[i\]nsurance policies are written contracts, and…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · September 23, 2004 · in the opinion
In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. (2004)
…they are entitled to discovery of all of Sears' asbestos-related products because the issue is Sears' knowledge of the danger of asbestos in general to show "what Sears knew and when it knew it." However…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · December 21, 2015 · in the opinion
Viera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2015)
…8, 2008). However, the movant must identify material witnesses and supply a general description of what their testimony will cover. Steck, 2015 WL 3767445, at [\3] (citation omitted). Defendants report that they are likely to call…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · September 5, 2018 · in the opinion
McKinney v. Hobart Bros. Co. (2018)
…806 N.E.2d 645 (2004)), and it would be difficult to imagine a more general disclosure than the bare statement that defendant's products caused plaintiff's mesothelioma. Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 213(g)…
-
Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · June 21, 1995 · in the opinion
Estate of Strametz v. Spectrum Motor., Inc. (1995)
…intact. The dissent does not claim that the amendments changed the last injurious exposure rule enunciated in Meyer and Fossum. Instead, it attempts to assess the legislature's general intent. 135 Or.App. at 84. A…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 6, 2015 · in the opinion
Gayoso v. Fiat USA (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2015)
…1984, in a General Assignment and Assumption Agreement, FAUSA agreed to assume all obligations and liabilities of FNMA defined as the Automobile Business Liabilities (including but not limited to those liabilities listed in Exhibit B to…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · May 19, 2023 · in the opinion
Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2023)
…l\]ike a number of other jurisdictions, Ohio follows the general rule that a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn of adjacent parts supplied by a third party, the so-called bare metal defense…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · December 30, 1982 · in the opinion
Murphree v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (1982)
…Tennessee's various statutes of limitations governing products liability actions has created troublesome problems for Tennessee courts in the past two decades. In 1969 the Tennessee Supreme Court in Jackson v. General Motors, 223 Tenn. 12…
-
Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · May 12, 2017 · in the opinion
Stockton v. Ford Motor Company (2017)
…908, 911 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (quoting Higgs v. General Motors Corp., 655 F. Supp. 22, 23 (E.D.Tenn.1985)) ("\\[I\]t makes no difference whether the complaint is couched in terms of negligence, strict…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Mississippi · June 9, 2021 · in the opinion
Dickens v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair Inc. (2021)
…No. 451-13). \[4\] The Court cannot locate in Dr. Compton's consideration of general "asbestos-containing friction materials" any discussion of the causation attributable to Dickens's limited contact with Ford products. (See Dr. Compton…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 9, 2009 · in the opinion
Ransford v. Griffin Wheel Company, Inc. (2009)
…law damage suits by former railroad workers against a locomotive manufacturer for personal injury allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos in the manufacturer's products. (Scheiding v. General Motors Corp. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 471, 474…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2012 · in the opinion
Barker v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012)
…A Manufacturer Owes No General Duty to Warn of Defects in Another Manufacturer's Product. A manufacturer's duty to warn does not extend to hazards arising solely from other products. The decedent in O'Neil…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · November 15, 2018 · in the opinion
Case v. Clark Indus. Insulation (2018)
…objection instead, and (2) the defense was not available at the time of the response. {¶ 27} JCI inserted general objections to every interrogatory regarding "sales that relate to a period of time, geographical area, or activity…
-
Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 5, 2016 · in the opinion
Watkins v. Affinia Group (2016)
…been tested, (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review, (3) whether there is a known or potential rate of error, and (4) whether the methodology has gained general acceptance. Id. at 593-594, 113…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 30, 2024 · in the opinion
Brooks v. Mission Stucco Company (2024)
…4th 413, 424 (Wysinger).) However, "\[w\]ith a special verdict, unlike a general verdict or a general verdict with special findings, a reviewing court will not infer findings to support the verdict." (Singh, at p. 358…
-
Court case · Oregon Supreme Court · July 3, 1997 · in the opinion
Beneficiaries of Estate of Strametz v. Spectrum (1997)
…Special Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondents on review Spectrum Motorwerks, Inc., and SAIF Corporation. With him on the briefs were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General. Before…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 23, 2023 · in the opinion
Ramirez v. Avon Prods. (Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2023)
…§ 2025.620, italics added.) While discovery in general aids both plaintiffs and defendants equally, the tools of discovery are intended to benefit the party utilizing those tools. The purpose of a deposition is not to aid…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 30, 2013 · in the opinion
Steiner v. Volkswagen Group OF America, Inc. (2013)
…fn. 22. As defendants point out, Ledesma referred to the scope of expert cross-examination in general, as set forth in section 721, subdivision (a), and did not address the limits of permissible cross-examination regarding…