19 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 8, 2014
Krauss v. Trane US Inc. (2014)
The Superior Court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for General Electric, Georgia-Pacific, CBS/Westinghouse, Goulds Pumps, Zurn Industries and Trane (American Standard), and the executrix lost. A plaintiff must produce evidence that the…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · September 16, 2016
George v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016)
…County state court. Even assuming consent-by-registration survives Daimler, Pennsylvania's registration statute limits general jurisdiction to acts occurring during the period of registration, so a registration that began after the alleged injury does not…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court · July 25, 1994 · in the opinion
Ace Robbins, Inc. v. Wcab (bullock) (1994)
…caused by two work-related exposures with two different employers. We agree that such a test is inappropriate to determine which of two employers is liable. General Electric Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Kosinski)…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · November 18, 2009 · in the opinion
Estate of Hicks v. Dana Companies, LLC (2009)
…of trial, the court barred the defendant from putting into evidence a publication of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) setting forth standards respecting the manufacture of electric hoists and other industrial lifting equipment. The…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · March 30, 1999 · in the opinion
Baker v. AC&S, Inc. (1999)
…v. Gamble, 201 Pa. 289, 50 A. 971 (1902); Turton v. Powelton Electric Co., 185 Pa. 406, 39 A. 1053 (1898). Thus, "\[e\]ven if two parties were equally responsible for the plaintiff's injury, one…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · April 7, 2011 · in the opinion
Wagers v. Sgl Carbon, LLC (2011)
…Inc. to perform the siding and roof installation on building number 24. (Id. at 2-3.) There was no general contractor on this project. The contract between Siding, Inc. and SGL specified for the use of…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · April 3, 1992 · in the opinion
Sealover v. Carey Canada (1992)
…the court must consider all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. White v. Westinghouse Electric Company, 862 F.2d 56, 59 (3d Cir.1988). Evidentiary issues Defendants contend that: (1) plaintiff…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · January 26, 2022 · in the opinion
Smith v. AO Smith Corp. (2022)
…However, these four companies were engaged in engineering design, facility and property management services, electrical contracting, and equipment rental—distinct lines of business from the plumbing and mechanical contracting work of Schneider, Inc. and Pittsburgh Mechanical…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2010
Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)
The court denied all four Daubert motions, allowing plaintiffs' causation experts (Brody, limited to general causation, and Legier), defense industrial hygienist Dyson's dose reconstruction testimony, and defendants' causation experts to testify. Expert testimony is admissible…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 18, 2007 · in the opinion
Bugosh v. Allen Refractories Company (2007)
…applicable. ¶ 28 The doctrine of judicial estoppel holds that "\[a\]s a general rule, a party to an action is estopped from assuming a position inconsistent with his or her assertion in a previous action, if…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · July 7, 1993 · in the opinion
Behrendt v. GAF Corp. (1993)
…fishing, woodworking. Mr. Behrendt's pain symptoms eventually led to a diagnosis of mesothelioma in December 1990. He was taken to the Emergency Room at Community General Osteopathic Hospital, Harrisburg, on December 23, 1990 with a…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · March 15, 2007 · in the opinion
Bugosh v. Allen Refractories Co. (2007)
…approach a situation to which the term judicial estoppel is applicable. ¶ 28 The doctrine of judicial estoppel holds that "\[a\]s a general rule, a party to an action is estopped from assuming a position inconsistent…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · May 7, 1992 · in the opinion
Sealover v. Carey Canada (1992)
…112 S.Ct. 1671, 118 L.Ed.2d 391 (New Rule 238 withstands constitutional challenges on due process and equal protection grounds.); Leonard v. General Motors Corp., Civil No. 88-2380, slip op. at 5 (E…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · November 22, 2010 · in the opinion
Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)
…Angell noted that Dr. Brody's expert testimony at trial will be limited to "general testimony about how asbestos causes cancer and may not include any opinion as to specific causation in this case." (Mem. Op…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · August 5, 2009 · in the opinion
Anderson v. Bondex Int'l (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2009)
…address the standards pertaining to relation back, and then proceed to apply those standards to the case before us. Relation Back in General Relation back is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c) which provides…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · June 8, 2012 · in the opinion
Petrina v. Allied Glove Corp. (2012)
…612 A.2d 500, 508 (1992); Pollock Industries, Inc. v. General Steel Castings Corp., 203 Pa.Super. 453, 201 A.2d 606, 611 (1964). Where a representative for a corporation acts within the scope of his…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · January 26, 2017 · in the opinion
National Fire Insurance Company OF Hartford v. Burns & Scalo Roofing Company (2017)
…the state court matter, Defendant sought a defense and indemnification from Plaintiffs consistent with the provisions of the general liability insurance occurrence policies issued to Defendant between the years 1988 and 1992 ("the Policies"). (See Pltfs…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · May 11, 1998 · in the opinion
McCauley v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1998)
…wages. \[4\] In Simmons, the supreme court noted a limited exception to the general rule that a plaintiff does not have a viable cause of action for asymptomatic pleural thickening. This exception recognizes that a plaintiff…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · February 13, 2004 · in the opinion
Smalls v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp. (2004)
…Trial, 12/4/01, at 32. Appellant argues that the opinion was inadmissible because it had no basis in fact nor general acceptance in the scientific community. We disagree. ¶ 11 Again, we observe that the admission…