53 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 3
-
Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · May 12, 2017
Stockton v. Ford Motor Company (2017)
The Court of Appeals vacated the $3.4 million judgment for Joyce and Ronnie Stockton against Ford Motor Company and remanded, because the jury instructions and verdict form omitted required questions on whether the product was…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Utah · January 18, 2013
Smith v. Ford Motor Company (2013)
The district court granted Ford Motor Company's motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert, Dr. Samuel Hammar, finding his "every exposure" causation opinion inadmissible, which went against plaintiff Linda Smith. An expert's…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 7, 2019
Michel v. Ford Motor Company (2019)
The court denied Ford's and Cummins's motions to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Dr. Staggs, Dr. Finkelstein and Christopher Depasquale, so the plaintiffs' experts may testify. An expert's specific-causation opinion…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida · September 25, 2018
Doolin v. Ford Motor Company (2018)
…s specific-causation expert, Dr. Kradin, and then granted summary judgment to Ford Motor Company and Pneumo Abex LLC, ruling against the estate's representative, Stacey Doolin. Under Daubert and Eleventh Circuit precedent, an expert's…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · July 25, 2013
Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2013)
…the intermediate appellate court, reinstated the jury verdicts for the Dixon plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company, and reversed the trial court's judgment for Ford on its cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific, which won back the…
-
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 · California Court of Appeal · July 30, 2010
Russell v. Ford Motor Company (2010)
The Court of Appeal affirmed the jury's liability and damages findings against Ford Motor Company, but vacated the judgment and remanded so Ford's counsel could review the settlement agreements before a new judgment was…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 5, 2017
Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company (2017)
…of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Exxon Mobil, Ford and Rossmoor, rejecting plaintiffs' challenges to the summary adjudication for Exxon, the nonsuit for Rossmoor, the jury instructions on Ford, and the defense verdict for Exxon. An…
-
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 · New York Court of Appeals · November 27, 2018
Juni v. Ford Motor Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, 2018)
…verdict against Ford Motor Company, so plaintiff Mary Juni lost and Ford won judgment as a matter of law. Viewing the evidence in plaintiff's favor, it was legally insufficient to establish that Ford's conduct…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · April 13, 2015
Juni v. Ford Motor Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2015)
The court granted Ford Motor Company's post-trial motion, set aside the jury verdict for plaintiffs Arthur and Mary Juni in its entirety, and directed judgment for Ford. Under the Court of Appeals' decisions in…
-
Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · January 10, 2013
Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer (2013)
The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the jury verdict and judgment for the estate against Ford and Honeywell (Bendix) because of the "substantial contributing factor" jury instructions, and remanded for further proceedings under a multiple-sufficient…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division · February 28, 2017
Mtr OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (2017)
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for Ford Motor Company, upholding the trial court's order setting aside the jury's verdict for plaintiff Mary Juni, and dismissed the appeal from the order as subsumed in…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · August 20, 2015
Oddo v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (2015)
…affirmed Ford's liability, reallocated fault to Ford 65%, Union Carbide 25% and Higgins 10%, and amended the survival damages award against Ford, so the plaintiffs lost against Southern Talc but kept their judgment against Ford…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · August 10, 2018 · in the opinion
Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC (2018)
(Ford MTE Castleman at 6.) However, the court notes that pursuant to Rule 703, an expert may disclose otherwise inadmissible underlying facts or data "if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially…
-
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 · 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 · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · May 2, 2016 · in the opinion
Whelan v. Armstrong Int'l (2016)
…Newark, argued the cause on May 2, 2016, and Sean M. Marotta argued the cause on May 16, 2018, for respondent Ford Motor Company (LeClair Ryan, attorneys; Robin Gnudi Kalocsay, Newark, and Michael D. Goldklang, on…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 25, 2014 · in the opinion
Lovelace v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2014)
Ford Motor Company During Trial Abex contends the judgment must be reversed "based on the \[trial\] court's prejudicial decision to apply Campbell mid-trial." Abex characterizes "the publication of Campbell" as "\[a\]n unexpected event…