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

Search

17 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 3, 1998 · in the opinion

    Scheiding v. General Motors Corp. (1998)

    …230, 67 S.Ct. 1146, 91 L.Ed. 1447.) Accordingly, "\[p\]reemption fundamentally is a question of congressional intent." (English v. General Electric Co. (1990) 496 U.S. 72, 78-79, 110 S.Ct. 2270, 110…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 12, 1998 · in the opinion

    Arena v. Owens Corning Corp. (1998)

    …reach the consumer in the same condition as it left the manufacturer\]; and Artiglio v. General Electric Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 830, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 817 \[silcone supplier not liable to user of…

  3. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 22, 2007 · in the opinion

    Brumley v. Fdcc California, Inc. (2007)

    …to the heir.' \[Citations.\] Thus, in a wrongful death action the \injury' is not the general loss of the decedent, but the particular loss of the decedent to each individual claimant." (San Diego Gas & Electric, supra…

  4. Court case · California Supreme Court · August 28, 1997 · in the opinion

    Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997)

    …contained both amosite and chrysotile asbestos fibers. John McKinley, who worked as an electrician at Mare Island, recalled working with Rutherford in the early 1950's. He testified that Rutherford and he were often required to…

  5. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 4, 2009 · in the opinion

    Ransom v. Calaveras Asbestos, Ltd. (2009)

    …pipe between 1971 and 1976. While working with asbestos cement pipe, Mr. Cookus used an electric saw to cut pipe in a trench. Dust would blow all over the place. Mr. Cookus worked with the Alex…

  6. Court case · California Court of Appeal · December 14, 1983

    Skip Fordyce, Inc. v. Workers'comp. Appeals BD. (1983)

    …and multiple-level hearsay from a doctor's report, a general pamphlet and an unsupported 'admission' that brake linings contain asbestos does not supply it. Medical opinions based on statistical studies can be substantial evidence of…

  7. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 6, 2013 · in the opinion

    Klinger v. Alderete (2013)

    …p. 34.) Although the defendant in Campbell was a property owner, not a general contractor employer, at least some of the reasoning expressed in Campbell for finding no liability would potentially apply to the underlying lawsuit…

  8. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 13, 2012 · in the opinion

    Shields v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012)

    …53 Cal.4th 335, also supports this argument. B. Tellez-Cordova In Tellez-Cordova, the court conducted an analysis of a ruling sustaining a general demurrer involving a similar issue. (Tellez-Cordova, supra, 129 Cal.App…

  9. Court case · California Supreme Court · July 3, 1980 · in the opinion

    Johns-Manville Products Corp. v. Superior Court (1980)

    …App.2d 451, 458-460 \[70 Cal. Rptr. 710\].) In Ramey v. General Petroleum Corp. (1959) 173 Cal. App.2d 386, 402 \[343 P.2d 787\], it was held that an action for fraud could be…

  10. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 26, 1999 · in the opinion

    Howard v. Owens Corning (1999)

    …emotional distress, intentional tort, conspiracy [\389] and loss of consortium; and sought general, special and punitive damages against no fewer than 215 named defendants and 300 unnamed does. Specifically, the complaint alleged that as a result…

  11. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 2, 2013 · in the opinion

    Swanson v. Simpson Timber Company (2013)

    …lawyering." (Id. at p. 811.) As a general rule, an employee who sustains an industrial injury "arising out of and in the course of the employment" is limited to recovery under the workers' compensation system. (Lab…

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 4, 2012 · in the opinion

    Bettencourt v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (2012)

    …plaintiffs' injuries. I. Standard of Review A motion for judgment on the pleadings is analogous to a general demurrer. (Ludgate, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 602.) Like a general demurrer, it tests the sufficiency…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 13, 1996 · in the opinion

    Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1996)

    …is one of the four plaintiffs in the wrongful death action of Mary Hansen. [\761] (5) "The general rule is that \an appeal reviews the correctness of a judgment as of the time of its rendition…

  16. Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 30, 2002 · in the opinion

    McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (2002)

    …summary judgment was reversed on appeal. In Scheiding, a general contractor defendant supported its summary judgment motion with a declaration from counsel stating that the plaintiff did not mention the defendant in discovery. (Id. at p…

  17. Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 30, 1994 · in the opinion

    Williamson v. Plant Insulation Co. (1994)

    …The proceedings here had not reached that stage when Wash Williamson died. (4) "The general rule is that \courts have inherent power to enter judgments nunc pro tunc so as to relate back to the time…