20 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · September 16, 2014 · in the opinion
Sherin v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (2014)
…CertainTeed Corporation, Selby, Battersby & Company, Foster Wheeler Corporation, Pfizer Corporation, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., General Electric Company, The Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Conwed Corporation, CBS Corporation, John Crane-Houdaille Inc…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · August 28, 1996 · in the opinion
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Garrett (1996)
…Fibreboard, Foster Wheeler, GAF Corporation, Garlock, General Electric, Owens-Illinois, Pittsburgh Corning and Westinghouse were cross-claim defendants. Crane Packing was found not liable and is not involved in this appeal. \[6\] See part III, section…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · March 24, 2015 · in the opinion
Sherin v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc. (2015)
…Inc., CertainTeed Corporation, Selby, Battersby & Company, Foster Wheeler Corporation, Pfizer Corporation, Schneider Electric USA, Inc., General Electric Company, The Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Conwed Corporation, CBS Corporation, John Crane-Houdaille…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 8, 1998 · in the opinion
Ford Motor v. Wood (1998)
…a duty to warn of dangers inherent in maintaining and repairing the manufacturer's products, do not persuade us to the contrary. Bich v. General Electric Co., 27 Wash.App. 25, 614 P.2d 1323 (1980)…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 7, 1998 · in the opinion
ACandS v. Abate (1998)
The Western Electric plant was comprised of several buildings and was approximately three miles long and one-and-one-quarter miles deep. Morrow indicated that he worked primarily in the wire insulation building until he became…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · July 3, 2019 · in the opinion
Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (2019)
…Sheppard was an electrician who performed work at LRHS in 1970-71, before Busch worked at LRHS. Sheppard did not know Busch personally and testified only as a "general product identification witness."\[15\] In a vein…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 26, 2012 · in the opinion
Georgia-Pacific v. Farrar (2012)
…2009, a jury trial commenced on the claims against Georgia-Pacific. The jury returned a general verdict finding that Ms. Farrar's exposure to Georgia-Pacific's product was a substantial factor in causing her injuries…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · July 8, 2013 · in the opinion
Georgia Pacific v. Farrar (2013)
…1972, at 11321. See also Asbestos Standard for General Industry, OSHA 3095 (1995). OSHA subsequently added requirements that employers ensure that employees remove asbestos-contaminated clothing only in the change rooms and that they not be…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 3, 2005 · in the opinion
Benjamin v. Union Carbide Corporation (2005)
…100 (1865), enacted Ch. 299 of the Acts of 1852, which was "almost a literal transcript of Lord Campbell's act.\[7\]" Stewart v. United Electric Light & Power Co., 104 Md. 332, 334 (1906). The act…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · April 26, 2005 · in the opinion
Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook (2005)
685 (2000), addressing "whether the general rule (that no loss of consortium claim exists for an ante-nuptial tort) applies in cases where, at the time of the marriage, the injury to the spouse is latent…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · June 29, 2012 · in the opinion
Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2012)
…we agree with Ford's contention that "case reports" and other anecdotal evidence are not probative of either general or actual causation,\[14\] but we must point out that Ford severely overstates the strength of its…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · May 31, 2022 · in the opinion
Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. Pifer (2022)
…be produced. Irwin's counsel also argued that the Estate could not prove its strict liability manufacturing defect claim because it could not satisfy factors set forth in Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · July 15, 2020 · in the opinion
Coates v. Ford Motor Company (2020)
…of a summary judgment motion, as well as foregoing the ruling on such a motion either temporarily until later in the proceedings or for resolution by trial of the general issue, involves not only pure legal…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · April 3, 2020 · in the opinion
Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company (2020)
…INSURANCE LAW—INDEMNITY—COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY POLICIES—APPORTIONMENT—PRO RATA—TRIGGER OF COVERAGE—INJURY-IN-FACT TRIGGER—CONTINUOUS TRIGGER The Court of Appeals held that damages from a continuous bodily injury judgment must be allocated on…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · October 4, 2019 · in the opinion
Colvin v. Eaton Corporation (2019)
…in which the party responds but the response is incomplete or otherwise objectionable. Rules Commentary at 436-37.\[3\] As a general matter, the first step in obtaining a judicial resolution of a discovery dispute is…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · July 6, 2018 · in the opinion
Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. v. Rossello (2018)
…defendants; January 4, 2016 was the deadline for the plaintiff to name his "most likely to use" general product identification fact witnesses from the original fact witness list who have been previously deposed; January 18, 2016…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 11, 2018 · in the opinion
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Coates (2018)
…PROCEEDINGS Until it closed in 1989, Marcantoni was a Baltimore-based general construction contracting company that specialized in highway and utility work for local governments in the greater Baltimore area. Its headquarters was located on Broening…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 26, 2018 · in the opinion
Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (2018)
…support a jury conclusion that W&G was the primary insulation contractor working at LRHS. This is not a case in which evidence was presented showing the general presence of asbestos-containing products at LRHS. Accordingly…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · August 10, 2018 · in the opinion
Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. Busch (2018)
…support a jury conclusion that W&G was the primary insulation contractor working at LRHS. This is not a case in which evidence was presented showing the general presence of asbestos-containing products at LRHS. Accordingly…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · September 19, 2018 · in the opinion
Vitale v. Burnham, LLC (2018)
…App. 438, 451 (2010) (citations and quotations omitted). "Mere general allegations of conclusory assertions will not suffice." Id. (citations omitted). Additionally, "a mere scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's claim is…