18 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · March 2, 2016
Myers v. Crouse-Hinds Division OF Cooper Industries, Inc. (2016)
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment to General Electric and Owens-Illinois in the Geyman case and reversed summary judgment for Crouse-Hinds and the other defendants in the Myers case, so…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · August 31, 2007
Asbestos Corporation Limited v. Akaiwa (2007)
…summary judgment is limited to the materials designated to the trial court, so evidence first offered on appeal is not considered. Product Identification; Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: Everett Electric electrical contractor Everett Electric 1980-1982
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · July 8, 1988 · in the opinion
Knox v. AC & S, Inc. (1988)
…any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or otherwise come to be located." State v. General Electric Co., 592 F.Supp. 291, 295 (N.D. NY 1984) (citation omitted)…
-
Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · March 25, 2003 · in the opinion
AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Herring (2003)
…Tennant Co., United States Gypsum Co., United States Mineral Products Co., Wagner Electric Co., Appellants (Defendants below), v. Lucille HERRING, on her own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Loyd Herring, Deceased., Appellee (Plaintiff…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · June 6, 1995 · in the opinion
Harris v. AC & S, Inc. (1995)
…822 (1971); Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941); Clarin Corp. v. Massachusetts General Life Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 471, 474 (7th…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · December 11, 1990 · in the opinion
Knox v. AC & S, Inc. (1990)
…Code sections 22-3-7-2 through XX-X-X-XX as the IWODA despite the fact that the Indiana General Assembly repealed the Act's short title in 1988. \[5\] The employer's exemption from…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · March 17, 1999
Novicki v. Rapid-American Corp. (1999)
…and Rapid-American conceded it did not. The case therefore fell under section 5, the general product liability limitation and repose provision. Because the parties had not briefed section 5, the court remanded for further argument…
-
Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · March 25, 2003
Jurich v. Garlock, Inc. (2003)
…applied. One statute covers asbestos claims against those who mined and sold asbestos. The other is the general ten-year statute of repose for product claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · October 18, 2001
Jurich v. Garlock, Inc. (2001)
…not sellers of asbestos-containing products. The general ten-year repose period violates the open courts clause of Article I, Section 12 as applied to a latent asbestos disease where exposure began before the Act or…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · November 6, 2001 · in the opinion
Allied Signal, Inc. v. Herring (2001)
…[\1036] Moreover, section 2 was enacted to extend the general limitations period in express recognition of the long latency period associated with asbestos-related diseases and illnesses. Extending the limitations period only for the very few…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana · June 23, 1999 · in the opinion
Lambert v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1999)
…we must address two issues. First, we must assess the general features of the type of incident involved to determine whether the incident had "a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce." Id. (quoting Sisson v. Ruby…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · August 31, 2007 · in the opinion
TH Agriculture and Nutrition, LLC. v. Akaiwa (2007)
…Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution. Article I, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution provides that "\[t\]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · January 10, 2002 · in the opinion
Harris v. AC & S., Inc. (2002)
…1995), trans. denied. In general, product liability actions must be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues or within ten years after the delivery of the product to the initial user or consumer…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · March 10, 1999 · in the opinion
Sorenson v. Allied Products Corp. (1999)
…the purchase of White Farm's assets. 3) There has been no sufficient exception shown to overcome the general rule that a purchaser of assets is not liable for prior actions of a selling corporation. 4)…
-
Court case · Indiana Supreme Court · March 25, 2003 · in the opinion
Harris v. AC & S., Inc. (2003)
…was proximately caused by his exposure to asbestos-containing products provided by the Defendants. The Indiana General Assembly has enacted two statutes that limit the period of time within which individuals can file product liability claims…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · November 20, 2007 · in the opinion
Casper v. LE Isley & Sons, Inc. (2007)
…the ODA, which is part of the worker's compensation scheme. More than twenty years after introduction of the Worker's Compensation Act ("WCA"), our General Assembly enacted the ODA, Ind.Code § 22-3-7, in…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · March 31, 2005 · in the opinion
Jurich v. John Crane, Inc. (2005)
…diseases: mesothelioma (cancer affecting the lining of the lung), lung cancer (which invades the lung's airways), asbestosis, and general pleural effusions or fibrosis. See Appellee's App. p. 563 (article by expert witness Arnold Brody…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · February 17, 1999 · in the opinion
Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Noppert (1999)
…to harmonize the provisions of a statute and give effect to all of its provisions, or save it from unconstitutionality or, in general, to effect the obvious intention of the legislature." (emphasis in original)); Dague v…