12 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · July 28, 2016 · in the opinion
Hillyer v. ABB (In re Asbestos Litigation Hillyer, 2016)
…Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. Eaton Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. Gould Electronics Inc., Cross Defendant…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · August 19, 2016 · in the opinion
Hillyer v. Mine Safety Appliances Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2016)
…LLC. Eaton Corporation, individually, Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. Gould Electronics Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by David Phillip…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · August 9, 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 · 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 · February 7, 2025 · in the opinion
Salvemini v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2025)
…Wrongful Death, and Loss of Consortium claims under General Maritime Law The Vessel Defendants argue that no federal court recognize a cause of action for "take-home" asbestos exposure under the Jones Act or maritime law. …
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · December 22, 2006
Hudson v. Delmarva Power & Light Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation Hudson Trial Group, 2006)
…for hazards faced by an independent contractor's employee unless it actively controlled the manner and method of the work, and general superintendence is not enough. DP&L did not actively control the work at Edgemoor…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · November 29, 2017
Walsh v. Aurora Pump Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)
…was a substantial factor in causing the injury. The court found the Walshes' evidence did not support that inference and that they were stretching general testimony about replacement parts. Because they bore the burden of proof…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · February 13, 2019
Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019)
…law, a plaintiff must show exposure to each defendant's product and that the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury. A general recollection of a manufacturer's name, with no detail on where…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · July 30, 2020 · in the opinion
Pruitt v. Amdura (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2020)
Pruitt perform general maintenance on these pumps every one to two months, which required removing and replacing gaskets and packing material. (Id.) Mr. Dumas further testified that Mr. Pruitt's maintenance work took two to three…
-
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 · 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 · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · August 7, 2019 · in the opinion
Rogers v. Asbestos Corp. Limited (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2019)
…2d 1116 (Del. Super. 1986). It is well-established that a plaintiff does not meet his burden of proof by simply placing the product at the general work site. Conway v. A.C.& S, C.A…