14 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · February 15, 2017 · in the opinion
In re Asbestos Litigation Evans v. Alfa Laval, Inc. (2017)
…Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC. Gardner Denver Inc., Defendant, represented by Krista Reale Samis, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · August 30, 2017 · in the opinion
Evans v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)
…Samuel I. Iola, pro hac vice. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · July 13, 2016 · in the opinion
Winhauer v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2016)
…Defendant, represented by Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. Honeywell International Inc…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · June 26, 2018 · in the opinion
Pieno v. Crosby Valve (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2018)
…a claim under Florida law, a plaintiff must simply show that a defendant's product was a "substantial contributing factor" to the injury that occurred.\[11\] Faddish v. General Electric Co., 2010 WL 4146108, at [\3…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · August 24, 2009 · in the opinion
General Motors Corporation v. Grenier (2009)
…deprived the trial judge of the opportunity to deal with the problem when it arose. Such inaction is deemed a waiver of any resulting error for appellate purposes. (Emphasis added.); Delaware Electric Coop., Inc. v. Duphily…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · February 4, 2009
General Motors Corporation v. Grenier (2009)
The Delaware Supreme Court remanded to the motion judge to reconsider the admissibility of the plaintiffs' general causation experts (Drs. Dodson and Lemen) because his factual findings misstated the record, leaving GM and Ford's challenge…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · July 22, 2019 · in the opinion
Richards v. Copes-Vulcan, Inc. (2019)
51, 51-52 (2008) ("Beyond general and specific causation, an additional causation issue arises when multiple defendants are responsible for exposing the plaintiff to a harmful substance. The most common example is a plaintiff who contracts…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · April 11, 2023 · in the opinion
Jordonek v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2023)
…rationale for why it should can be gleamed from the California law cited by the plaintiff. California follows the general rule of no duty to warn, but recognizes exceptions to that doctrine.\[13\] In Sherman v…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · January 31, 2019 · in the opinion
Knecht v. Ford Motor Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2019)
…other words, an adequate warning might have allowed someone to avoid a risk of mesothelioma had there been an adequate warning. Because Ford's products were defective in that general way, and because Mr. Knecht was…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · November 8, 2017 · in the opinion
Leathers v. Pneumo Abex (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)
…in Rhode Island.\[1\] The Court noted that "this test comports with \[their\] Supreme Court's general causation jurisprudence and fairly balances the interests of plaintiffs and defendants."\[2\] The Sweredoski decision is a 2013 decision…
-
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. District Court, District of Delaware · March 8, 2017 · in the opinion
Evans v. Flowserve US Inc. (2017)
…must "assess the general features of the type of incident involved," to determine whether the incident has "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce\[.\]" Second, a court must determine whether "the general character" of the "activity…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · January 25, 2019 · in the opinion
Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019)
…Holdings, 198 P.3d 493 (Wash. 2008) recognized the general rule that "a manufacturer does not have an obligation to warn of the dangers of another manufacturer's product." Braaten, 198 P.3d at 501. Therefore…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · August 31, 2020 · in the opinion
Petit v. Hennessy Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2020)
…testimony of Craig Mountz, AMMCO's corporate representative. The New York Times article highlights the use of asbestos in the industry in general, but does not aid Plaintiff in satisfying the Sweredoski standard. The Mountz testimony…