6 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · November 8, 2016 · in the opinion
Hovsepian v. the Adel Wiggins Group (2016)
…AND CARLSON. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Anita Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP & Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP. General Gasket Corporation…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · April 21, 2017
MacCormack v. the Adel Wiggins Group (2017)
…on reconsideration, found it lacked general or specific personal jurisdiction over CBS in Missouri, a loss for the plaintiffs. Missouri's foreign corporation registration statute does not constitute consent to general personal jurisdiction, per State ex…
-
Court case · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 2, 2017 · in the opinion
Poage v. Crane Co. (2017)
…must adduce sufficient evidence to support every essential element of a claim to make a submissible case). The general test for proximate cause is whether an injury is "a reasonable and probable consequence" of a defendant…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · March 8, 2017 · in the opinion
MacCormack v. the Adel Wiggins Group (2017)
…. ." \[Doc. \#333-1, at 18-19\]. \[2\] Hovsepian claimed breach of warranty under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 106, § 2-318. He argued that "the defendants expressly and impliedly warranted that the asbestos and asbestoscontaining products and…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · September 11, 2017 · in the opinion
MacCormack v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017)
…911 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987) (reasoning that a worsening of a condition did not justify a subsequent new action as "\[t\]he general rule is, of course, that a plaintiff the "identity of issues" factor. 8…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · January 30, 2018 · in the opinion
MacCormack v. Ingersoll-Rand Company (2018)
…App. Ct. 1987) (reasoning that a worsening of a condition did not justify a subsequent new action as "\[t\]he general rule is, of course, that a plaintiff is entitled to one recovery in a personal…