12 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · July 25, 2016 · in the opinion
Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016)
…to Square D for use in the manufacture or assembly of molded or bonded component parts in certain electrical equipment products which may or may not have contained asbestos:... Union Carbide Corporation \[and\] General Electric.... (Id…
-
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 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 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 Appeals · July 25, 2013 · in the opinion
Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2013)
…Potomac Electric and held that the General Assembly did not intend for the cap to apply to awards in wrongful death actions. That ruling had a very short shelf life. In its next session, the General…
-
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 · 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 · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · July 17, 2017 · in the opinion
Rockman v. Union Carbide Corp. (2017)
…702(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, nor do they satisfy the Daubert factors, including "testability," "peer review," and "general acceptance" within the "relevant scientific community," Bresler, 855 F.3d at 195. On the contrary…
-
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 · 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…