No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Search

20 results for “General Electric”

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · March 17, 2011 · in the opinion

    Kiser v. AW Chesterton Co. (2011)

    …Plaintiff argues that either Virginia's General Assembly was aware of what Plaintiff sees as a national trend in favor of adoption of the separate disease rule and embodied this trend when it amended Virginia's…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · March 16, 2011

    Kiser v. AW Chesterton Co. (2011)

    Phyllis Kiser, as executor of her husband Orvin Kiser, Sr.'s estate, brought a wrongful death suit in October 2010 against a group of companies whose asbestos-containing products were alleged to have caused his mesothelioma. He was diagnosed with…

  3. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 11, 1994 · in the opinion

    DiDio v. Philadelphia Asbestos Corp. (1994)

    …Hence, although we vacate the judgment entered against Fibreboard, this does not affect the validity of the judgment entered against O-I. See, e.g., General Electric Credit Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 437 Pa…

  4. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · March 22, 2000 · in the opinion

    Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co. (2000)

    …Industries, DAR Industrial Products, Inc., Fibreboard Corporation, Flexitallic Gasket Co., Flintkote Co., Foster Wheeler Corporation, GAF Corporation, Garlock Inc., General Electric Company, George V. Hamilton, Inc., Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Gibson-Homans, Gould, Inc., Keene Corporation, Melrath…

  5. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · April 4, 1996 · in the opinion

    Simmons v. Pacor, Inc. (1996)

    …Bubash v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 717 F.Supp. 297 (M.D.Pa.1989) (emotional distress resulting [\678] from fear of contracting cancer is not recoverable absent physical injury); Friedman v. General Electric Company, 706 F.Supp…

  6. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 17, 2002 · in the opinion

    Andaloro v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (2002)

    …Company, Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., Owens Brockway Glass Container, Inc., Studebaker Worthington, Inc., Uniroyal, Inc., Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Inc., WR Grace & Co., Armstrong World Industries, Inc., Fibreboard Corp., GAF Corporation. Appeal of: John Crane, Inc., Appellant…

  7. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · May 25, 1993 · in the opinion

    Dempsey v. Pacor, Inc. (1993)

    …1094 (1991). Appellees acknowledge this general pronouncement of law but contend that retroactive application should only occur when the issue at the center of the change in law has been properly preserved for review. Certainly appellants…

  8. Court case · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · January 22, 1997 · in the opinion

    Sharpless v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas (1997)

    …pains. In that case, the patient died after the hospital failed to provide an operable electrocardiogram machine. The plaintiff's expert witness in Bashline offered an opinion that if the hospital employed certain methods and treatment…

  9. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · December 9, 1992

    Taliferro v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1992)

    …Fear of Cancer and Medical Monitoring; Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (Philadelphia Navy Yard); Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia laborer doing general cleanup and debris removal on ships Philadelphia Naval Shipyard Philadelphia 1967-1981

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · October 1, 2010 · in the opinion

    Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2010)

    …125-8). Defendant asserts that this is a general, speculative statement and is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. While it is true that Plaintiffs' expert does not directly controvert Defendant's expert…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · October 8, 2010 · in the opinion

    Peter & Elpis Constantinides v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2010)

    …125-8). Defendant asserts that this is a general, speculative statement and is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. While it is true that Plaintiffs' expert does not directly controvert Defendant's expert…

  12. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · June 10, 1986 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1986)

    …Inc., Rapid American, Uni-Royal, Carolina Asbestos Co., J. Franklin Burke General Asbestos Co., Ruberoid Company, Keaseey Mattison Co., Asten Hill Manufacturing Co. Argued December 17, 1985. Filed June 10, 1986. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. [\60…

  13. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · August 25, 2005 · in the opinion

    Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2005)

    …is highly practical. Therefore, this decision is applicable only to asbestos-related cases and not to summary judgment cases in general. ¶ 5 Essentially, plaintiffs ask this Court en banc to overrule the panel decision in Quate…

  14. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 20, 1992 · in the opinion

    Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (1992)

    …TAMILIA, KELLY and JOHNSON, JJ. [\442] WIEAND, Judge: The general issue in this asbestos exposure action is whether Pennsylvania, in the context of asbestos actions, shall be a one-disease or two-disease state. More specifically…

  15. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · January 27, 1984 · in the opinion

    Doe v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)

    …June 27, 1978 is broad in its scope and is to be liberally construed,\[3\] but is not without its limitations. In its general provision it states: Courts of record, within their respective jurisdictions, shall have…

  16. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · April 11, 2000 · in the opinion

    In re Patenaude (2000)

    …the instant case, where the possibility exists that even individual settlement negotiations will be more efficient if facilitated by a judge who is intimately familiar with the general issues and many of the parties, and where…

  17. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · July 21, 2010 · in the opinion

    Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2010)

    …breath. In so finding, Dr. Gelfand noted that, while the obstructive lung condition due to smoking showed "some improvement," in general, the reduction in lung diffusion remained severe. See Report of Dr. Gelfand concerning Frederick Summers…

  18. 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…

  19. 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…

  20. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 3, 1982 · in the opinion

    Staiano v. Johns-Manville Corp. (1982)

    …Pa.R.App.P. 301(a). Appellants acknowledge the general rule that an issue not argued below may not be argued on appeal, but nevertheless assert that their argument is not waived. They say: [\293] The…