9 results for “General Electric”
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 24, 2014 · in the opinion
Groover v. CBS Corporation (2014)
…INC., RILEY STOKER CORPORATION, JOHN ZINK COMPANY, JOHN CRANE HOUDAILLE, INC., INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, GOULD PUMPS, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, FOSTER WHEELER, CONOCO PHILLIPS COMPANY, CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC., BP AMERICA, INC., ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, AMERICAN STANDARD…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · March 13, 2006 · in the opinion
Chenot v. AP Green Services, Inc. (2006)
…and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger. Pennsylvania law imposes no general duty on property owners to prepare and maintain a safe building for the benefit of a contractor's…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · February 14, 2012
Senger v. AH Bennett Company (2012)
…must raise a genuine issue of fact that exposure to the defendant's product proximately caused the injury. General coworker testimony about refinery work, which does not tie a particular decedent to the defendant's product…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · February 15, 2012
Various Plaintiffs v. Various Defendants (2012)
…a genuine issue of material fact that exposure to the defendant's product proximately caused the injury. General testimony about the refinery and its work practices, without evidence tying a decedent to the defendant's product…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · December 3, 2009
Hogston v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. (2009)
…may be shown by circumstantial evidence, but the evidence must make it probable rather than merely possible. A general distribution area and franchise, without evidence of deliveries to the plant, does not suffice when another distributor…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · December 4, 2009
Hogston v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. (2009)
…s asbestos product, but it must show probability rather than possibility. A distributor's general franchise territory, without evidence of deliveries to the plant and with direct evidence that another distributor supplied it, does not let…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · January 25, 1991 · in the opinion
Moran v. G. & WH Corson, Inc. (1991)
…with Bob Hinks. Q. About that knowledge? A. A general discussion, a light general thing that I had read about in the paper or, you know, not actually getting into detail. Q. You read about what…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · February 11, 2009 · in the opinion
Vanaman v. Dap, Inc. (2009)
…limits the asbestos-related liability of Pennsylvania corporations when that liability arises from a merger or consolidation. In general, the Statute caps the successor corporation's asbestos-related liability at the fair market value of the…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · September 21, 1995 · in the opinion
Baumgart v. Keene Bldg. Products Corp. (1995)
…835 (1967). However, we have long recognized an exception to this general rule which acts to toll the running of the limitations period. The discovery rule "provides that where the existence of the injury is not…