50 results for “General Electric”, page 1 of 3
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · March 30, 2021
Pizarro v. National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (2021)
Renato Pizarro and his wife sued NASSCO, Pep Boys and other companies, alleging his mesothelioma came from asbestos exposure. The opinion describes two sources. One was the Navy overhaul of the USS Bristol County, where plaintiffs say NASSCO removed…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · April 29, 2019 · in the opinion
Toy v. Honeywell International Inc. (2019)
…by Daniel James Kelly, Tucker Ellis LLP & Nicole Elisabet Gage, Tucker Ellis LLP. Fryer-Knowles Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Stewart Bishop, Sinunu Bruni LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Derek S. Johnson, WFBM, LLP…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 28, 2015 · in the opinion
Marteney v. Union Carbide Corp. (2015)
…product, provided that their own parts or material were nondefective, and they did not exercise control over the end product. (Artiglio v. General Electric. Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 830, 838-840.) In Walker, the…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 25, 2021 · in the opinion
Putt v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2021)
…CBS Corporation; Certain-Teed Corporation; Crown Cork & Seal Company; Forest River, Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; General Electric Company; Genuine Parts Company; Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll-Rand Company; John Crane Inc.; Kelly Moore Paint Company, Inc…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · May 16, 2019 · in the opinion
Toy v. Viking Pump (In re Toy Asbestos Litigation, 2019)
…by Daniel James Kelly, Tucker Ellis LLP & Nicole Elisabet Gage, Tucker Ellis LLP. Fryer-Knowles Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Stewart Bishop, Sinunu Bruni LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Derek S. Johnson, WFBM, LLP…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 26, 2012 · in the opinion
Bankhead v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2012)
…Baker & McKenzie (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1128, 1137-1138.) We give only a general summary of the facts relating to liability and compensatory damages, because the details are not germane to the issues presented by…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 15, 2015 · in the opinion
Soto v. BorgWarner Morse Tec Inc. (2015)
…pain and suffering of the decedent, which is not recoverable as a general rule." The court nonetheless permitted Gabriel to testify about "\[h\]elping out Grandpa towards the end," including giving him morphine, changing his diapers…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 4, 2019 · in the opinion
Linsowe v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2019)
General Motors (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1183.) We begin our independent review of the special verdict with the award of $532,685.37 in economic and noneconomic damages to Sharron Linsowe. The damages award…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 29, 2007 · in the opinion
Bakkie v. Union Carbide Corporation (2007)
…The court explained that the employer was a "sophisticated organization" and it did not have to be "told that gasoline is volatile and that sparks from an electrical connection or friction can cause ignition." (Ibid.) Subsequently…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 29, 2024 · in the opinion
Watts v. Pneumo Abex, LLC (2024)
…of Review We discussed the long-established law governing directed verdicts in North Counties Engineering, Inc. v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 902, 920 \[169 Cal.Rptr.3d 726\] (North Counties)…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 16, 2010 · in the opinion
Haver v. BNSF Railway Company (2010)
…inside the diesel repair shop, including boilermakers, pipefitters, electricians, and laborers. Mike worked in close proximity to pipefitters while they worked on the locomotives and on insulated pipes within the shop. The pipefitters would perform maintenance…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · June 24, 2024 · in the opinion
Marcus v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2024)
…causation standard, and then arguing that the second "substantial factor" prong is not met). Only in its reply does Eaton raise doubts about Plaintiff's actual bystander exposure to its asbestos-containing electrical products. Dkt. No…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 17, 2017 · in the opinion
Phillips v. Honeywell International Inc. (2017)
…that is the most deadly of the three. It also described the general agreement that the diseases are positively correlated to the intensity and duration of exposure to asbestos dust, but noted "there is no conclusive…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 2, 2017 · in the opinion
Johnson v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2017)
…trucks during the relevant time period." (Italics added.) To support this argument, Johnson relies heavily on a footnote in a recent Supreme Court opinion, Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 193…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 26, 2014 · in the opinion
Scott v. Ford Motor Company (2014)
…time employing as many as 17 workers. While operating the service stations, Scott became a member of an automotive trade association and earned certification in electrical systems, engine performance, and advanced engine performance from Automotive Service…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 16, 2010 · in the opinion
Teruel-Armstrong v. Borg-Warner Morsetec, Inc. (2010)
Ford and General Motors could have sought to enforce compliance with their deposition subpoena or sought some assurance from plaintiffs' counsel that the documents requested in the subpoena would be produced at the deposition. It appears…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2019
Mettias v. The Pep Boys Manny, Moe & Jack of California (Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2019)
…refusal to give general negligence instructions and the misstatements in reading the instructions caused no prejudicial error. A party is entitled to instructions on every theory supported by substantial evidence, but not to general negligence instructions…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 20, 2021
Sweikhart v. Akebono Brake Industry Co. (2021)
…subsidiary's agent. Under California law, a foreign corporation may be served through its "general manager in this state," which includes its wholly-owned domestic subsidiary's agent for service, so Hague Convention procedures need not…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · June 24, 2015
Quiroz v. BNSF Railway Company (2015)
…found that Thoms did not know whether the brake shoes contained asbestos, and the plaintiffs' interrogatory answers and work history sheet gave only general statements. The plaintiffs' industrial hygienist gave no facts showing that the brakes…