848 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 20 of 43
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · September 28, 2021 · in the opinion
Krutz v. Huntington Ingalls Inc. (2021)
…testimony, fact or expert, to show that Amchem's asbestos products were a substantial factor in causing his disease. Cf. Michel v. Ford Motor Co., No. 18-4738, 2019 WL 118007, at [\3] (E.D. La…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · August 4, 2015 · in the opinion
Vedros v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. (2015)
…because science has failed to establish that any specific dosage of asbestos causes injury, every exposure to asbestos should be considered a cause of injury." Yates v. Ford Motor Co., 113 F.Supp.3d 841, 846…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · September 25, 2009 · in the opinion
Merrill v. Leslie Controls, Inc. (2009)
…which makes them better able to insure that the component is suitable for their specific applications. (Springmeyer v. Ford Motor Co. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1541, 1554 \[71 Cal.Rptr.2d 190\].) Liability of a…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · March 6, 2017 · in the opinion
Bell v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. (2017)
…plaintiff's exposure. See Rost v. Ford Motor Co., 2016 WL 6876490, at [\8] (Pa. Nov. 22, 2016) (permitting expert opinion that "Rost's exposures to asbestos at Smith Motors were sufficiently frequent, regular, and proximate…
-
Court case · Florida Supreme Court · October 15, 2018 · in the opinion
DeLisle v. Crane Co. (2018)
…exposed to asbestos-containing products from the following nonparty defendants: Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC; A.W. Chesterton Co.; Ford Motor Co.; Honeywell International, Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal, as successor in interest to Allied Corp.…
-
Court case · California Supreme Court · December 1, 2016 · in the opinion
Kesner v. Superior Court and Haver (2016)
…materials. Neither the Havers' nor Kesner's suit reached a jury. Abex moved for nonsuit at the beginning of trial in light of Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15, 34 (Campbell)…
-
Court case · Missouri Court of Appeals · June 19, 2012 · in the opinion
Wagner v. Bondex International, Inc. (2012)
…Montgomery, 331 S.W.3d at 335. "Whether the plaintiff made a submissible case is a question of law subject to de novo review." Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749, 756 (Mo…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · June 26, 2017 · in the opinion
Rublee v. Carrier Corporation (2017)
…466, 472, 804 P.2d 659 (1991); RCW 4.22.920. \[22\] Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wn.2d 522, 452 P.2d 729 (1969) (applying § 402A strict product liability to manufacturers); Seattle-First Nat…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · June 26, 2016 · in the opinion
Rublee v. Carrier Corp. (2016)
…466, 472, 804 P.2d 659 (1991); RCW 4.22.920. \[22\] Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wash.2d 522, 452 P.2d 729 (1969) (applying § 402A strict product liability to manufacturers); Seattle-First Nat…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit · March 22, 2016 · in the opinion
Savoie v. Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated (2016)
…was a negligence case). And in any event, the Louisiana Supreme Court's more recent decision almost two decades later in Dupree is binding on this court. See Ford Motor Co. v. Dall. Power & Light Co…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota · March 28, 1990 · in the opinion
Puppe By Puppe v. AC and S., Inc. (1990)
…955 (N.D.Tex. 1978) ($10 million punitive damage award overturned by court); Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. 348 (1981) (upheld trial court's reduction in punitive damage…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · January 25, 2012 · in the opinion
Rabovsky v. Goulds Pumps (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (NO. VI), 2012)
…602 F.3d 152, 172 (3d Cir. April 7, 2010) (quoting Pineda v. Ford Motor Co., 502 F.3d 237, 243-44 (3d Cir. 2008)). As is the case with regard to the Federal Rules of…
-
Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · April 20, 2016 · in the opinion
McKenzie v. AW Chesterson Co. (2016)
…P.2d 957 (1997), rev'd on other grounds, 330 Or. 376, 8 P.3d 200 (2000); see also Wood v. Ford Motor Co., 71 Or.App. 87, 90, 691 P.2d 495 (1984), rev. den.…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 24, 2021 · in the opinion
Sabetian v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (2021)
…it is an appropriate one for the forum to apply to the case before it"'"\].) We review the choice of law question de novo. (Scott v. Ford Motor Co. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1503…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · July 20, 2018 · in the opinion
Clayton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2018)
…b)(2); Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 n.18 (9th Cir. 1999). A Rule 12(c) motion challenges the sufficiency of the opposing party's pleadings, and the court…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · August 29, 1990 · in the opinion
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1990)
…s verdicts if at all possible. See Wagner v. International Harvester Co., 611 F.2d 224 (8th Cir.1979); Hasson v. Ford Motor Co., 19 Cal.3d 530, 138 Cal. Rptr. 705, 564 P.2d 857 …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · March 15, 2019 · in the opinion
Douglas v. Imerys Talc America, Inc. (2019)
…be proper under § 1441(a) even if venue might have been improper in the state court prior to removal. Id.; see also Becker v. Ford Motor Co., No. 4:07CV1573 FRB, 2007 WL 4404168, at [\1…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · January 25, 1991 · in the opinion
Moran v. G. & WH Corson, Inc. (1991)
…id., and "view trade relations realistically rather than mythically." Verge v. Ford Motor Co., 581 F.2d 384 (3rd Cir.1978). Thus in determining who may be "primarily responsible" [\125] and required to indemnify in a…
-
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…