No fee unless we recover compensation for your family Text size 833-4-ASBESTOS (833-427-2378) Free Case Review

Search

49 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 3

  1. Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · July 22, 2019 · in the opinion

    Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2019)

    …J., dissenting). In some cases, it has proven difficult to apply. See, e.g., Stockton v. Ford Motor Company, No. W2016-01175-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 2021760, at [\12]-15 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed May…

  2. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · April 25, 1989 · in the opinion

    Anjeski v. Keene Bldg. & Development Co. (1989)

    …to a directed verdict because with the former the evidence has yet to be fully developed. See Pierce v. Ford Motor Company, 190 F.2d 910 (CA 4 1951); but see 10 Federal Practice and Procedure…

  3. Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · December 22, 1994 · in the opinion

    Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. United Ins. Co. (1994)

    …Ford Motor Company, HM Holdings, Inc., ICI Americas Inc., International Business Machines Corporation, J.T. Baker, Inc., Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, LTEE, Maremont Corporation, National Service Industries, Inc., Pfizer Inc., Public Service Electric & Gas Company…

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · November 5, 1997 · in the opinion

    Ciletti v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 1997)

    …and a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner." Denny v. Ford Motor Company, 87 N.Y.2d 248…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois · September 21, 2015 · in the opinion

    Kochera v. General Electric Company (2015)

    …806 (7th Cir. 2013) (Daubert "remains the gold standard for evaluating the reliability of expert testimony."). The Seventh Circuit's Opinion in Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2000) provides the…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois · September 2, 2015 · in the opinion

    Bell v. Abb Group, Inc. (2015)

    …806 (7th Cir. 2013) (Daubert "remains the gold standard for evaluating the reliability of expert testimony."). The Seventh Circuit's Opinion in Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2000) provides the…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · December 22, 2014 · in the opinion

    Krik v. Crane Co. (2014)

    …See Schultz, 721 F.3d at 432 (recognizing that such broad opinions give rise to concerns about "an ill-defined floor"); see also Smith v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:08-cv-630, 2013 WL 214378…

  9. Court case · Kentucky Court of Appeals · March 6, 2009 · in the opinion

    Cardinal Industrial Insulation Co., Inc. v. Norris (2009)

    …jury instruction in every duty supported by the facts\[.\]" Id. We believe the trial court satisfied that entitlement with a liability instruction — its Instruction No. 1 — substantively indistinct from that in Ford Motor Co. v. Fulkerson…

  10. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · August 29, 1990 · in the opinion

    Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1990)

    …s verdicts if at all possible. See Wagner v. International Harvester Co., 611 F.2d 224 (8th Cir.1979); Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., 19 Cal.3d 530, 138 Cal. Rptr. 705, 564 P.2d 857 …

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · September 11, 2017 · in the opinion

    MacCormack v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017)

    …that under some circumstances even in the case of default, where a party actively participated in the litigation previously, collateral estoppel would apply); see also Ellis v. Ford Motor Co., 628 F. Supp. 849, 857 (D…

  12. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · June 11, 2002 · in the opinion

    Crane, Inc. v. Scribner (2002)

    …2d at 996. In adopting 1990 as the critical date when the cause of action arose, the court, though supposedly applying Grimshaw, essentially applied the manifestation test. In Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md. App…

  13. Court case · Illinois Supreme Court · October 21, 1999 · in the opinion

    McClure v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1999)

    …Supp. 1031, 1037 (D.Mass.1981); Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co., 514 F.Supp. 1004, 1016 (D.S.C.1981); Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md.App. 1, 36, 703 A.2d 1315, 1332 (1998)…

  14. Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · December 19, 2019 · in the opinion

    Daniels v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2019)

    …App. 3d 26, 37, 342 Ill.Dec. 678, 932 N.E.2d 1139 (2010), and Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 398 Ill. App. 3d 222, 271, 337 Ill.Dec. 788, 923 N.E.2d 347 (2010…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 18, 2000 · in the opinion

    Wilson v. John Crane, Inc. (2000)

    …society ascribes some fault to this conduct." (Id. at p. 1188, 272 Cal.Rptr. 304.) Quoting Montez v. Ford Motor Co. \[ (1980) \] 101 Cal.App.3d 315, 318-319, 161 Cal.Rptr. 578, the court continued…

  16. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · November 18, 1993 · in the opinion

    Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1993)

    …unpersuaded by plaintiffs' argument. The zero damages rule conflicts with the standard of review articulated by the Texas Supreme Court in the case of Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · July 29, 2011

    Corley v. Bill Vann Co. (In re Liability Litigation, 2011)

    The executor of Charles Corley's estate sued a group of companies in Alabama state court under the Alabama Wrongful Death Act. Mr. Corley had died of mesothelioma in October 2009. The case was removed to…

  18. Court case · New York Supreme Court · December 18, 2015 · in the opinion

    Voelker v. John Crane (Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 2015)

    …merit. Wherefore, it is hereby, ORDERED, that plaintiffs motion is granted and defendant's cross motion is denied. SO ORDERED. \[1\] Those entities were: Combustion Engineering; Ford Motor Co.; Foster-Wheeler Energy Co., LLC.; Garlock Sealing…

  19. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · February 19, 2020 · in the opinion

    Roverano v. John Crane, Inc. (2020)

    …actual, product-specific causation in many asbestos cases, the courts have come to accept abstract assessments of increased risk as proxies for traditional substantial-factor causation. See Rost v. Ford Motor Co., 637 Pa. 625, 668…

  20. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · February 11, 2009 · in the opinion

    Burger v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (2009)

    …deposition, Mr. Burger testified he performed automotive repairs and, from the early 1950's to the early 1980's, he used brakes from Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, Pep Boys, and NAPA stores. Deposition of Jon Burger…