39 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 2
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 16, 2013
Webber v. Ford Motor Company (2013)
The Superior Court reversed the trial court's orders opening and vacating the judgment entered for Ford, Abex and Honeywell and granting a mistrial, and denied the Webbers' motion to quash, so the defense judgment stood…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · May 19, 2014
Rost v. Ford Motor Company (2014)
The Superior Court affirmed the judgment for Richard and Joyce Rost against Ford Motor Company, rejecting Ford's appeal and the Rosts' cross-appeal. Betz v. Pneumo Abex does not bar all 'any exposure' expert opinion…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · November 22, 2016
Rost v. Ford Motor Co. (2016)
…affirmed the judgment for the Rost estates against Ford Motor Company, holding that the causation testimony was proper and that, although consolidation with two other cases was error, Ford showed no prejudice. An expert may tell…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · March 19, 2018
Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2018)
…Nevada Bell and AT & T, Inc., found jurisdiction over Ford and AT & T Corp., but dismissed the claims against those two without prejudice as conclusory, allowing plaintiffs to amend. A foreign corporation registered in Pennsylvania consents…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · February 20, 2019
Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019)
The court denied Ford's and AT&T Corp.'s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but granted their motions for failure to state a claim, dismissing both from the amended complaint without prejudice…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · August 27, 2014
Smith v. Bmw OF North America LLC (2014)
…affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for Ford Motor Company and Borg-Warner Corporation, against the estate of Paul Rowland, represented by Amy Smith as executrix. A company is liable as an apparent manufacturer under…
-
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 · 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 · Pennsylvania Superior Court · July 23, 2018 · in the opinion
Gilbert v. Advance Auto Parts (2018)
…John Price, only gave general deposition testimony that Ford was one of the main brands of vehicles \[Decedent\] worked on. While both of the aforementioned fact witnesses gave general testimony about \[Decedent\] performing brake jobs at…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · August 13, 2015
Frank v. Honeywell International Inc. (2015)
The court granted non-party expert Dr. Arthur Frank's motion and quashed the subpoena served by Honeywell (joined by Ford), because they had not shown a need for the documents or deposition. A non-party…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 8, 2014 · in the opinion
Krauss v. Trane US Inc. (2014)
…Moore Paint Company Inc.; Borden Chemical Inc., f/k/a Borden Chemical Company and n/k/a Hexio Specialty Chemicals Inc., Prentice Hall Corporation; Certain-Teed Corporation f/k/a Certainteed Products Corporation; Ford Motor Company…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · December 28, 2017 · in the opinion
Roverano v. John Crane, Inc. (2017)
…cases, "Pennsylvania law requires that a plaintiff prove two elements: "that the product was defective, and that the defect was the substantial factor in causing the injury." Rost v. Ford Motor Company, 637 Pa. 625, 151…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2010 · in the opinion
Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)
…806 (\Admissibility decisions focus on the expert's method and reasoning; credibility decisions arise after admissibility has been determined.')." Pineda v. Ford Motor Company, 520 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir.2008). In evaluating whether a…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 27, 2015 · in the opinion
Schwartz v. Abex Corp. (2015)
…494, 709 A.2d 139 (Md. 1998) (involving asbestos-containing replacement brakes used with motor vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company). Because the issue is on appeal, the Court has not considered Maryland state law as…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · July 25, 2018
Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent (2018)
Robert Kraus, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma in December 2017, sued dozens of companies in Philadelphia state court. His wife, Margaret, joined with a consortium claim. He alleged asbestos exposure during Navy service aboard the U…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · July 22, 2019 · in the opinion
Kraus v. Alcatel-Lucent (2019)
…REILLY, REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT, PC, STEPHEN SCOTT, REILLY MCDEVITT & HENRICH & SUSAN M. VALINIS, REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT P.C. FORD MOTOR CO., Defendant, represented by DANIEL J. SINCLAIR, ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC & ERIC L. HORNE, ECKERT…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · August 26, 2014 · in the opinion
Gillen v. Boeing Company (2014)
…applying Maryland law and finding no duty); In re Certified Question from Fourteenth Dist. Court of Appeals of Texas (Miller v. Ford Motor Co.), 740 N.W.2d 206, 218 (Mich. 2007) (applying Michigan law and…
-
Court case · U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · December 16, 2015 · in the opinion
In re All Matters Related TO North American Refractories Company (2015)
…g., Liberty Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 562 F.3d 553, 557 (3d Cir. 2009) ("We have long held that an injury measured in solely monetary terms cannot constitute irreparable harm."). On its face…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · February 16, 2011 · in the opinion
Anderson v. Salmon Bay and Gravel Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2011)
…Schiff, 602 F.3d 152, 172 (3d Cir. April 7, 2010) (quoting Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 502 F.3d 237, 243-44 (3d Cir. 2008)). Defendant has not challenged the qualification of Plaintiffs' experts, so…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · May 16, 2016 · in the opinion
Hassell v. The Budd Co. (In re Asbestos Products Liability Lit.(no. VI), 2016)
…SBRMCOA, LLC v. Bayside Resort, Inc., 707 F.3d 267, 272-73 (3d Cir.2013) (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 284-85 (3d Cir. 1991)). In this case…