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

Search

25 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 2

  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 · 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…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. 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…

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · October 24, 2019 · in the opinion

    Evans v. John Crane, Inc. (2019)

    …expert must testify about matters requiring scientific, technical or specialized knowledge; and (3) the expert's testimony must assist the trier of fact." Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 520 F.3d 237, 244 (3d Cir. 2008)…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · July 19, 2019 · in the opinion

    Evans v. Imo Industries, Inc. (2019)

    …by Captain Moore in forming his opinion regarding Navy warning requirements do not have the requisite "fit" to assist the trier of fact. See Oddi v. Ford Motor Co., 234 F.3d 136, 145 (3d Cir…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 29, 2013 · in the opinion

    Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013)

    …of governmental safety regulations does not bar an award of punitive damages for egregious misconduct that they are ineffective in preventing. (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 810 \[174 Cal.Rptr…

  16. Court case · Georgia Court of Appeals · June 27, 1997 · in the opinion

    John Crane, Inc. v. Wommack (1997)

    …manner. See Bagley v. CSX Transp., 219 Ga.App. 544, 545(1), 465 S.E.2d 706 (1995); Ford Motor Co. v. Stubblefield, 171 Ga.App. 331, 335-336(2), 319 S.E.2d 470 (1984)…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia · September 28, 2018 · in the opinion

    Goodrich v. John Crane, Inc. (2018)

    …702. Courts have condensed these requirements into two primary inquiries: "1) whether the proposed expert's testimony is relevant; and 2) whether it is reliable." Yates v. Ford Motor Co., No. 5:12-CV-752-FL…

  18. Court case · Georgia Court of Appeals · October 29, 2019 · in the opinion

    Davis v. John Crane, Inc. (2019)

    …designing it so that it is reasonably safe for the purposes for which it is intended, and for other uses which are foreseeably probable\[.\] (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Ford Motor Co. v. Stubblefield…

  19. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · June 23, 2006 · in the opinion

    Barone v. Gatx Corp. (2006)

    …DeGulis, Hoffmann & Lombardi, L.L.P., and Stephen H. Daniels, for appellant. DONALD R. FORD, Presiding Judge. {¶ 1} Appellant, John Crane, Inc., appeals from the May 13, 2005 judgment entry of the Trumbull County Court of…

  20. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 29, 1998 · in the opinion

    Adams v. Owens-Illinois (1998)

    …Special Appeals of Maryland. [\60] Harry Goldman, Jr. (Goldman, Skeen & Wadler, P.A., on the brief), Baltimore, for Appellants. B. Ford Davis, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, Baltimore, for ACandS, Inc. Edward F. Houff, Church & Houff, P.A.…