96 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 2 of 5
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · August 24, 2009
General Motors Corporation v. Grenier (2009)
…Court affirmed the $2 million jury verdict for Grenier against Ford, upholding the trial court's admission of Grenier's expert causation testimony after remand and rejecting Ford's other claims of error. A trial court…
-
Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · February 4, 2009 · in the opinion
General Motors Corporation v. Grenier (2009)
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. ROLAND LEO GRENIER, SR., Plaintiff Below, Appellee. Nos. 453, 2007, 578, 2007 Submitted: October 29, 2008. Decided: February 4, 2009. Supreme Court of Delaware Christian…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · August 10, 2018 · in the opinion
Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC (2018)
(Ford MTE Castleman at 6.) However, the court notes that pursuant to Rule 703, an expert may disclose otherwise inadmissible underlying facts or data "if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially…
-
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 · Delaware Superior Court · April 8, 2009
Grenier v. General Motors Corp. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2009)
…despite factual errors in its earlier opinion, it properly denied General Motors' and Ford's motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation expert testimony, so Grenier's experts remained admissible. A plaintiff's expert need not disprove…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · May 23, 2012 · in the opinion
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2012)
Indeed, Appellant Ford Motor Company reads the responsive expressions of members of this Court in two recent decisions as recognizing that the any-exposure opinion facially implicates the Frye test. See Summers, 606 Pa. at 318…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 30, 2010
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2010)
The Superior Court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Allied Signal and Ford (and the other friction product defendants) and remanded, holding that the trial court wrongly granted the defendants' Frye motion excluding the…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 11, 2018
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Coates (2018)
The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgments for Coates against Mack Trucks and Ford on negligent failure to warn, and reversed the judgments for CertainTeed on Mack's and Ford's cross-claims, remanding for…
-
Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · May 2, 2016 · in the opinion
Whelan v. Armstrong Int'l (2016)
…Newark, argued the cause on May 2, 2016, and Sean M. Marotta argued the cause on May 16, 2018, for respondent Ford Motor Company (LeClair Ryan, attorneys; Robin Gnudi Kalocsay, Newark, and Michael D. Goldklang, on…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · February 22, 2022 · in the opinion
Budd v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2022)
…v. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; Appellant, Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc.; Certainteed Corporation; DAP, Inc.; Ford Motor Company; Honeywell International Inc., Individually and as successor to Allied Signal, Inc. and The Bendix Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company…
-
Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · November 15, 1994 · in the opinion
Becker v. Baron Bros. (1994)
…BENDIX CORPORATION; MOPAR; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; ABC; BORG WARNER; RAYLOC; EIS; WAGNER; PRIVATE BRANDS; VERA IMPORTED PARTS; SANYO AUTOMOTIVE; INTERCO PARTS CORPORATION; LUCAS INDUSTRIES INC.; I.A.P. IMPORTED PARTS; COLUMBIA MOTORS CORPORATION; GLOBE AUTO IMPORTS;…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 25, 2014 · in the opinion
Lovelace v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2014)
Ford Motor Company During Trial Abex contends the judgment must be reversed "based on the \[trial\] court's prejudicial decision to apply Campbell mid-trial." Abex characterizes "the publication of Campbell" as "\[a\]n unexpected event…
-
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.…
-
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…
-
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."…
-
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.…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 24, 2008 · in the opinion
Cunningham v. Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (2008)
…provide the replacements for such parts, they cannot be held liable for Cunningham's injuries. (See, e.g., Vandermark v. Ford Motor Company, supra, 61 Cal.2d at p. 262; Wiler v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co…
-
Court case · Georgia Court of Appeals · March 20, 2012 · in the opinion
Union Carbide Corporation v. Fields (2012)
…Defendants appeal the trial court's ruling only with respect to the following 16 nonparty entities: Georgia Power Company ("Georgia Power"); Ford Motor Company ("Ford"); Genuine Parts Company ("Genuine Parts"); Chrysler LLC ("Chrysler"); General Motors ("GM")…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · September 8, 2010
Horn v. A.W. Chesterson Co. (In re Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2010)
Ten asbestos cases, brought by plaintiffs represented by the same law firm, were assigned to one New York County judge for trial. Eight of the plaintiffs, alleging mesothelioma, asked the court to consolidate their cases into three groups for joint…