18 results for “Ford Motor Company”
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · July 15, 2020
Coates v. Ford Motor Company (2020)
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment for Ford Motor Company after retrial, rejecting the Coates estate's challenges to the denial of partial summary judgment, the denial of a new trial, and the refusal…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · October 24, 2002
Vaughn v. Ford Motor Co. (2002)
The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing judgment for Ford, General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, Allied Signal, Borg-Warner and Uniroyal, holding the exclusion of plaintiff's experts was an abuse of discretion but harmless because…
-
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 · 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 · 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, Western District of Pennsylvania · October 31, 2008
Kummer v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2008)
The court denied Viacom's summary judgment motion because genuine factual disputes remained on causation, and granted Ford's and GM's unopposed motions, so Mrs. Kummer's claims against Viacom go forward. Under general maritime…
-
Court case · South Carolina Supreme Court · April 30, 2007
Henderson v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2007)
James Henderson, a North Carolina resident, and his wife sued several manufacturers in South Carolina. They claimed he developed mesothelioma from asbestos-containing products he encountered working for many years as a boilermaker, pipefitter and…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · July 1, 2019 · in the opinion
Noll v. Special Electric Company, Inc. (2019)
…INC; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC; HERCULES INCORPORATED; HONEWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.; INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION f/k/a THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC.; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY INC.…
-
Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · March 13, 2008 · in the opinion
Woody v. AW Chesterton Company (2008)
…are A.W. Chesterton Company; Advance Auto Parts, Inc.; Bayer CropScience, Inc.; Borg Warner Morse TEC, Inc.; Breeding Insulation Company, Inc.; Breeding Insulation Company, Chattanooga, Inc.; CBS Corporation; CertainTeed Corporation; Crane Company; Ford Motor Company; Foster…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · June 29, 2015 · in the opinion
Noll v. American Biltrite, Inc. (2015)
…Inc.; Ford Motor Company; General Electric Company; Georgia-Pacific, LLC; Hercules Incorporated; Honeywell International, Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation, f/k/a The Carborundum Company; Ingersoll-Rand Company; J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 28, 2010 · in the opinion
Johnson v. Certainteed Corporation (2010)
…Vandermark held that the lower court erred in granting a nonsuit on the plaintiff's claim that Ford Motor Company (Ford) could not be strictly liable for a product defect simply because it relied on its…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana · July 14, 2014 · in the opinion
Davidson v. Georgia Pacific LLC (2014)
…for the District of Utah, in two recent cases, Anderson v. Ford Motor Company, 950 F. Supp.2d 1217 (D. Utah 2013) and Smith v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2:08-630, 2013 WL 214378 (D…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · June 20, 2017
Altman v. Ford Motor Co. (In re New York City Asbetos Litigation, 2017)
…Benicia Pump Repair Benicia 1950s-1980s; helper in boiler and furnace removal and installation stepfather's boiler and furnace business 1950s; worker at a construction products company 1970s; handyman 1970s and 1980s; union carpenter various construction…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 24, 2012 · in the opinion
Evans v. Certainteed Corp. (2012)
…e.g. Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15, 33.) A jury returned a verdict in favor of a plaintiff homemaker who suffered personal injuries caused by her exposure to asbestos dust…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 21, 2018 · in the opinion
Trapp v. CertainTEED Corporation (2018)
…to individuals who lived or worked some distance away from its plant, citing to Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15 (Campbell), a case that was later overruled by Kesner v. Superior…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · August 25, 2005 · in the opinion
Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2005)
¶ 10 FORD ELLIOTT, BENDER and BOWES, JJ., join. \[\\] Judge Joyce recused from participation. \[1\] Frederick Summers' wife, Lynn Summers, is also a plaintiff in a loss of consortium claim. For convenience, Frederick S. Summers and Richard…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · July 21, 2010 · in the opinion
Summers v. Certainteed Corp. (2010)
…at 242 n. 2. \[9\] Then Judge, now President Judge, Ford Elliott, and Judges Bender and Bowes joined Judge Panella's OISR. \[10\] These differences, and the applicability of such to this case, will be explained…