736 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 6 of 37
-
Court case · Michigan Court of Appeals · January 11, 2007
Chapin v. A & L Parts, Inc. (2007)
…Ford, General Motors and Honeywell lost their challenge to the Chapins' expert evidence (one judge dissented). A trial court acting as gatekeeper under MRE 702 and MCL 600.2955(1) need not resolve genuine scientific disputes…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · July 10, 2006
Berger v. Amchem Prods. (2006)
The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motions (joined by Ford and General Motors) to preclude evidence that brake and clutch dust causes asbestos disease, to dismiss the complaints, and for a Frye hearing, so the plaintiffs (Berger…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 14, 2003
Cossman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2003)
The Court of Appeal affirmed the nonsuit for the friction-product defendants (DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Mercedes-Benz USA, Volkswagen of America and Pneumo Abex), holding that Indiana's two-year statute of limitations barred the Cossmans' claims…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · July 22, 2019
Richards v. Copes-Vulcan, Inc. (2019)
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Copes-Vulcan, Ford and Goodyear and the denial of the Richards' request to supplement their expert report or for reargument. Under Ohio law, Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.96…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · April 8, 2009
Grenier v. General Motors Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2009)
…despite factual errors in its earlier opinion, it properly denied General Motors' and Ford's motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation expert testimony, so Grenier's experts remained admissible. A plaintiff's expert need not disprove…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · May 23, 2012 · in the opinion
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2012)
Indeed, Appellant Ford Motor Company reads the responsive expressions of members of this Court in two recent decisions as recognizing that the any-exposure opinion facially implicates the Frye test. See Summers, 606 Pa. at 318…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · September 17, 2018 · in the opinion
Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (2018)
…the brands of brakes he worked on at Dexter, Mr. Jack testified that "\[s\]ome of them \[were\] Ford." (Id. at 131:17-20.) When Plaintiffs' counsel asked Mr. Jack if he used the arc grinder …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana · May 28, 2015
Hayes v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (2015)
The court granted summary judgment to Honeywell (successor to Bendix) and Ford, dismissing plaintiffs' claims against them with prejudice for lack of product identification evidence. Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, product identification is a threshold…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana · May 28, 2015
Hayes v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (2015)
The court granted summary judgment for Honeywell (successor to Bendix) and Ford, dismissing with prejudice the Hayes sons' claims over their father's mesothelioma death. Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, a manufacturer is liable only…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · September 23, 2004
In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. (2004)
The court of appeals conditionally granted Sears and Ford's mandamus petitions, ordering the trial court to vacate its discovery orders because the requests for workers' compensation files, board minutes and violation records were overly broad…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · May 28, 2019 · in the opinion
Jack v. Dco, LLC (2019)
…those he encountered at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard." (Resp. DCo at 11; Resp. Ford at 12.) In particular, Plaintiffs emphasize that Mr. Jack testified in his deposition that, while he was working at the Shipyard…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 16, 2010 · in the opinion
Teruel-Armstrong v. Borg-Warner Morsetec, Inc. (2010)
…51 Cal.App.4th 1447; Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262; Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202; see also New Albertsons, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 20, 2019
Temperino v. Amchem Prods. (2019)
…without prejudice to renewal at trial; Ford's motion was marked withdrawn. Conflicting expert reports on whether exposure caused lung cancer raise credibility issues that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. The court deferred ruling on…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · May 17, 2013
Finerty v. Abex Corp. (2013)
…referred it to the Special Master, marked Ford Ireland's and Ford England's motions to dismiss off the calendar with leave to reinstate, and denied the motions to stay discovery as moot. A court may…
-
Court case · Indiana Court of Appeals · November 6, 2001
Allied Signal, Inc. v. Herring (2001)
…Statute of Limitations; Statute of Repose; Wrongful Death and Survival; Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: Cummins Engine Company plant; Cummins Engine Company, Inc., Columbus employee of Cummins Engine Company Cummins Engine Company, Inc. Columbus 1942-1978
-
Court case · Kentucky Supreme Court · August 23, 2007 · in the opinion
General Elec. Co. v. Cain (2007)
…judgment as a matter of law. Ford Motor Company Ford Motor Company designed, manufactured, and sold motor vehicles during the period from 1975 to 1982. Rehm worked at two Ford plants in Louisville while employed by…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · August 26, 2022 · in the opinion
Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022)
…exposed to asbestos from Ford vehicles, plaintiffs' claims stand. Accordingly, Ford's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. v. Navistar, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment Navistar, Inc. (f/k/a International Harvester Company) contends that…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 30, 2010
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2010)
The Superior Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Allied Signal and Ford (and the other friction product defendants) and remanded, holding that the trial court wrongly granted the defendants' Frye motion excluding the…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 11, 2018
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Coates (2018)
The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgments for Coates against Mack Trucks and Ford on negligent failure to warn, and reversed the judgments for CertainTeed on Mack's and Ford's cross-claims, remanding for…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · August 31, 2017 · in the opinion
Charlevoix v. Caterpillar (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)
Charlevoix performed clutch and gasket work on Ford vehicles owned by family and friends. (D.I. 216, Ex. 3 at 152:16-19) However, Mr. Milligan could not recall the manufacturer of any clutches or gaskets…