6 results for “Ford Motor Company”
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit · July 31, 2002
In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc. (2002)
Tens of thousands of people sued in state courts across the country, claiming that asbestos in friction products such as brake pads gave them or their relatives mesothelioma, lung, laryngeal or esophageal cancer, or asbestosis. They sued makers and…
-
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 · New York Supreme Court · November 13, 2003
Polito v. Burns Int'l Services Corp. (Matter of Asbestos Litig., 2003)
…repaired over a number of years. The remaining defendants were Burns International (formerly Borg-Warner), DaimlerChrysler, Ford and General Motors, all involved in making or distributing brake products. Before trial, they moved to exclude certain evidence…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · May 9, 2006 · in the opinion
In re Asbestos Litigation (2006)
…Minner, 791 A.2d at 848 (the trial court does not choose between competing reliable opinions, nor is it empowered to determine which theory is stronger). \[216\] See e.g. Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119…