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

Search

736 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 12 of 37

  1. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · February 14, 2018 · in the opinion

    Condon v. Advance Thermal Hydronics, Inc. (2018)

    …and Northern Pump Business; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FORT KENT HOLDINGS, INC., f/k/a Dunham Busch, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Iron Fireman Combustion Products; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORP.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GEORGIA PACIFIC LLC…

  2. Court case · South Carolina Court of Appeals · September 1, 2021 · in the opinion

    Jolly v. General Elec. Co. (2021)

    …the product."). In Branham v. Ford Motor Company, our supreme court refined the risk-utility test to incorporate the American Law Institute's most recent definition of a design defect: A product ... is defective in design…

  3. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · September 30, 2019 · in the opinion

    Dugger v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019)

    …Weathersby Houff. Warren Pumps, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Meggie Hogan, Swanson Martin and Bell, pro hac vice. Ford Motor Company, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Michelle Noorani, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP. Alfa Laval, Inc.…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 2013 · in the opinion

    Wannall v. Honeywell International, Inc. (2013)

    …verdict against Honeywell International Incorporated and Ford Motor Company for the wrongful death of James D. Lokey, caused by mesothelioma resulting from exposure to asbestos in dust from Bendix brakes installed in Ford and other vehicles."…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · September 30, 2019 · in the opinion

    Dugger v. Union Carbide Corporation (2019)

    …Weathersby Houff. Warren Pumps, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Meggie Hogan, Swanson Martin and Bell, pro hac vice. Ford Motor Company, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Michelle Noorani, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP. Alfa Laval, Inc.…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · April 19, 2018 · in the opinion

    Jack v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (2018)

    …Randy J. Aliment, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Mark J. Fucile, FUCILE & REISING. Gardner-Denver Inc, Defendant, represented by Claude Bosworth, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented…

  7. Court case · Kentucky Court of Appeals · July 7, 2023 · in the opinion

    Williams v. Schneider Electric USA, Inc. (2023)

    …The Kentucky Supreme Court granted discretionary review and vacated the decision, as the Court had overruled Ervin Cable in Sheets v. Ford Motor Company, 626 S.W.3d 594 (Ky. 2021).\[2\] We were then ordered…

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · California Court of Appeal · February 2, 2017 · in the opinion

    Johnson v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2017)

    …identified six specific trucks owned by Bekins during the years of Father's employment: two Ford Motor Company (Ford) bobtail trucks (1965 and 1969 models) and four medium-duty International Harvester Company (International) semitruck tractors (1965…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama · September 29, 2015 · in the opinion

    Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2015)

    …("Consolidated Aluminum") (id. ¶ 6); (v) Dana Companies LLC, sued both individually, and, as successor-in-interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company ("Dana") (id. ¶ 7); (vi) Ford Motor Company ("Ford") (id. ¶ 8); and (vii) Unilever United States…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama · October 29, 2013 · in the opinion

    Bobo v. Agco Corp. (2013)

    …Inc. ("Consolidated Aluminum"); (v) Dana Companies LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company ("Dana"); (vi) Ford Motor Company ("Ford"); (vii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife"); (viii) TVA; and (ix) Unilever…

  14. Court case · Massachusetts Appeals Court · September 20, 2010 · in the opinion

    Morin v. AutoZone Northeast, Inc. (2010)

    …in the complaint as Pneumo Abex Corporation); Ron's Truck Stop; and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. The judge denied summary judgment as to Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, and Honeywell International, Inc…

  15. Court case · South Carolina Supreme Court · February 28, 2024 · in the opinion

    Edwards v. Scapa Waycross, Inc. (2024)

    …the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's opinion in Rost v. Ford Motor Company\[2\] and claims the court of appeals improperly approved the use of the cumulative dose theory rejected in Henderson and Lohrmann. We disagree…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2010 · in the opinion

    Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)

    …806 (\Admissibility decisions focus on the expert's method and reasoning; credibility decisions arise after admissibility has been determined.')." Pineda v. Ford Motor Company, 520 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir.2008). In evaluating whether a…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina · July 23, 2014 · in the opinion

    Legal Newsline v. Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (2014)

    …00210-MOC (Ford Motor Company, Appeal), 3:14-cv-00212-MOC (Legal Newsline, Appeal), 3:14-cv-00214-MOC (Garlock Appeal), 3:14-cv-00215-MOC (Honeywell Appeal), 3:14-cv-00216-MOC (Insurance Companies' Appeal…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama · August 25, 2014 · in the opinion

    Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2014)

    …Inc. ("Consolidated Aluminum"); (v) Dana Companies LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company ("Dana"); (vi) Ford Motor Company ("Ford"); (vii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife"); (viii) TVA; and (ix) Unilever…

  19. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · December 30, 1982 · in the opinion

    Murphree v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. (1982)

    …Supreme Court, with Justice William Fones dissenting, prevented the amendment from becoming effective. The Court held in Ford Motor Company v. Moulton, 511 S.W.2d 690 (Tenn.1974) that under Tennessee vested rights doctrine, based…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 27, 2015 · in the opinion

    Schwartz v. Abex Corp. (2015)

    …494, 709 A.2d 139 (Md. 1998) (involving asbestos-containing replacement brakes used with motor vehicles manufactured by Ford Motor Company). Because the issue is on appeal, the Court has not considered Maryland state law as…