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

Search

495 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 20 of 25

  1. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · April 12, 2007 · in the opinion

    Hilbert v. Aeroquip, Inc. (2007)

    …1988); United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir.1986); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 F.2d 603, 604-605 (1st Cir.1980); United States v. Vega, 678…

  2. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · November 30, 2012 · in the opinion

    Ruppel v. CBS Corporation (2012)

    …give rise to liability. Second, the language in those four subparagraphs contain the hallmarks of negligence liability. See Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., 955 N.E.2d 1138, 1153-54 (Ill. 2011) ("A product liability action. …

  3. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · August 26, 2010 · in the opinion

    Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Bostic (2010)

    …232 S.W.3d at 770 (quoting Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton, 898 S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex. 1995)); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 46 (Tex. 2007). Thus…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida · July 10, 2013 · in the opinion

    Flomenhoft v. Georgia-Pacific LLC (2013)

    …summary judgment in favor of the defendants on a loss of consortium claim in an asbestos matter with nearly identical facts to the instant case. See Stevens v. Ford Motor Corp., 107 So. 3d 416 (Fla…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · October 13, 2022 · in the opinion

    Gorton v. Eaton Corporation (2022)

    …2022 WL 1265532, at [\5] (quoting Rost v. Ford Motor Co., 151 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2016)). "\[T\]o determine whether plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence that defendant's products were the cause of plaintiff's…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas · September 25, 2006 · in the opinion

    Jacobs v. Tapscott (2006)

    …disclosures is just that—to supplement. Such disclosures are not intended to provide an extension of the expert designation and report production deadline." Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320…

  7. 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…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · August 16, 2018 · in the opinion

    Finch v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2018)

    …20] (E.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2014), on reconsideration on other grounds sub nom. Yates v. Ford Motor Co., No. 5:12-CV-752-FL, 2015 WL 9222834 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 17, 2015)…

  9. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · July 13, 2022 · in the opinion

    Cortez v. Lamorak Ins. Co. (2022)

    …the argument that plaintiff's disease "cannot be caused by a certain type of asbestos" and that this defense can be considered by the jury when determining causation); Michel v. Ford Motor Co., No. 18-4738…

  10. Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 17, 2016 · in the opinion

    Kordestani v. ExxonMOBIL Oil Corporation (2016)

    …408, 421 \[generally, state has no legitimate interest in imposing punitive damages for out-of-state conduct\]; Aguirre Cruz v. Ford Motor Co. (W.D. Tenn. 2006) 435 F.Supp.2d 701, 705-706 \[collecting cases…

  11. Court case · Iowa Supreme Court · January 19, 1994 · in the opinion

    Spaur v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1994)

    …565-66 (1992) ("\[I\]t seems highly illogical and unfair for courts to determine at what point punitive damage awards should cease."); Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis.2d 260, 294 N.W.2d 437…

  12. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · December 9, 2019 · in the opinion

    Shaffer v. AW Chesterton Co. (2019)

    …¶ 10, quoting Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., Lincoln-Mercury Div., 28 Ohio St.3d 20, 502 N.E.2d 590 (1986), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶19} In response to U.S…

  13. Court case · Missouri Court of Appeals · May 2, 2017 · in the opinion

    Poage v. Crane Co. (2017)

    …a design defect when, "a design is itself inadequate, rendering the product unreasonably dangerous without regard to whether a warning is given\[.\]" Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749, 757 (Mo. banc 2011)…

  14. Court case · Delaware Superior Court · June 7, 2011 · in the opinion

    Davis v. Crane Co. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2011)

    …Ford Motor Co., 2010 WL 3005539 (Del. Super. July 30, 2010), which held that Ford was not entitled to summary judgment under Pennsylvania law on a failure-to-warn claim where there were genuine factual disputes…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Oregon · December 28, 2023 · in the opinion

    Chatfield v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (2023)

    …under Oregon law, the seller of a defective product may be sued in tort for products liability. Pl. Mot. 11 (citing Heaton v. Ford Motor Co., 248 Or. 467, 470, 435 P.2d 806, 808 (1967…

  16. 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…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana · February 12, 2025 · in the opinion

    Alford v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc. (2025)

    …Ct.1974); Spruill v. Boyle-Midway, Inc., 308 F.2d 79, 87 (4th Cir.1962); Wolfe v. Ford Motor Co., 6 Mass.App. 346, 376 N.E.2d 143, 147 (1978); Seley v. G.D. Searle…

  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 · California Court of Appeal · October 5, 2018 · in the opinion

    Marteney v. Elementis Chemicals Inc. (2018)

    …Furthermore, we would reject it were we to consider it, as ratification through the acceptance of benefits requires knowledge of the relevant circumstances (Johnson v. California Interurban Motor Transp. Assn. (1938) 24 Cal.App.2d 322…

  20. Medical study · Medical research · 2007

    Asbestos exposure causes mesothelioma, but not this asbestos exposure: an amicus brief to the Michigan Supreme Court

    …They argued that hundreds of reported mesothelioma cases in mechanics must be considered. They stated that Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler admitted in litigation paying over $30,000,000 since 2000 to experts who produced papers…