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

Search

20 results for “Ford Motor Company”

  1. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · June 29, 2012

    Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2012)

    The Court of Special Appeals vacated the judgments for the Dixon plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court should not have admitted the plaintiffs' expert's causation opinion…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · September 27, 2019

    Ratcliff v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (2019)

    The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Ford, Brenntag Specialties, Whittaker Clark & Daniels and Honeywell because Ratcliff's claims were time-barred, and recommended terminating the other pending motions as moot. Under North Carolina law…

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana · May 28, 2015

    Hayes v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (2015)

    The court granted summary judgment to Honeywell (successor to Bendix) and Ford, dismissing plaintiffs' claims against them with prejudice for lack of product identification evidence. Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, product identification is a threshold…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana · May 28, 2015

    Hayes v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd. (2015)

    The court granted summary judgment for Honeywell (successor to Bendix) and Ford, dismissing with prejudice the Hayes sons' claims over their father's mesothelioma death. Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, a manufacturer is liable only…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · April 4, 2017

    Hart v. Honeywell International (2017)

    …warn claims, but denied it to Honeywell and Ford on the brake design defect claim, so the plaintiffs' case continued against those two; Ford's sanctions motion was denied. Under Ohio's Product Liability Act, a…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · February 1, 2022

    Labarre v. Bienville Auto Parts Inc. (2022)

    …It denied the motion on negligence, because Bienville's two witnesses conflicted on whether the company knew the brakes contained asbestos and that asbestos was dangerous. It also denied the motion on the sophisticated-user defense…

  9. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · December 11, 2012

    Gaskill v. Abex Corporation (2012)

    …Honeywell, Volkswagen and Ford prevailed. Dismissal with prejudice is a permissible sanction where a party commits fraud on the court by deliberately lying about his work history in discovery and no lesser sanction would suffice. The…

  10. Court case · Iowa Court of Appeals · August 31, 2022 · in the opinion

    Fankhauser v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2022)

    …Thomas Michael Boes, Des Moines, and Jason Madden of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, Des Moines, for appellee Ford Motor Company. Deere & Company, self-represented. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran, and Schumacher, JJ. SCHUMACHER, Judge.…

  11. Court case · Iowa Court of Appeals · September 21, 2022 · in the opinion

    Fankhauser v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2022)

    …Boes and Jason T. Madden of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee Ford Motor Company. Deere & Company, self-represented. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran, and Schumacher, JJ. SCHUMACHER, Judge. Our…

  12. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 26, 2016 · in the opinion

    Schwartz v. Honeywell Internatl., Inc. (2016)

    …Cleveland, OH, for Ford Motor Co. General Electric Corporation, CT Corporation Systems, Cleveland, OH, for General Electric Corporation. Genuine Parts Company c/o Grant Norris SA, Columbus, OH, for Genuine Parts Company. Pneumo Abex Corp. Successor…

  13. Court case · Wisconsin Court of Appeals · November 19, 2013 · in the opinion

    Lemberger v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2013)

    …309 Wis. 2d 541, 556, 749 N.W.2d 581, 589 (negligence); Austin v. Ford Motor Co., 86 Wis. 2d 628, 643, 273 N.W.2d 233, 239 (1979) (strict liability). The comparison to be made…

  14. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · December 28, 2009 · in the opinion

    Honeywell International, Inc. v. Guilder (2009)

    …redact this portion of the letter for use at trial. See MCI Exp., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 832 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Next, we turn to the second issue concerning the exclusion…

  15. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · December 23, 2009 · in the opinion

    Honeywell International, Inc. v. Guilder (2009)

    …redact this portion of the letter for use at trial. See MCI Exp., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 832 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Next, we turn to the second issue concerning the exclusion…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · April 4, 2016 · in the opinion

    Smith v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2016)

    …D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2014), reconsidered on other grounds sub nom. Yates v. Ford Motor Co., No. 5:12-CV-752-FL, 2015 WL 9222834 (Dec. 17, 2015).\[2\] Even if Ms. Smith could show…

  17. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 14, 2019 · in the opinion

    Mettias v. The Pep Boys Manny, Moe & Jack of California (Laosd Asbestos Cases, 2019)

    …evidence." (Hasson v. Ford Motor Co. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 530, 543 \[138 Cal.Rptr. 705, 564 P.2d 857\], italics omitted, overruled on different grounds in Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · September 5, 2018 · in the opinion

    Alexander v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2018)

    …S. 592-94. After considering these factors, courts are granted a "broad attitude" to determine admissibility. Clay v. Ford Motor Co., 215 F.3d 663, 667 (6th Cir. 2000). Admissibility does not require a perfect methodology…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Washington · September 27, 2021 · in the opinion

    Strong v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2021)

    …because the district court has a statutory duty to order a competency hearing where a criminal defendant's mental disease makes him unable to assist properly in his defense) with Kline v. Ford Motor Co., Inc.…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · August 9, 2016 · in the opinion

    Winhauer v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2016)

    …Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee Tyler…