7 results for “Ford Motor Company”
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 8, 2010
Reaser v. AW Chesterton Company (2010)
Robert Reaser served in the Navy from 1951 to 1971, working as a pipefitter and welder on Navy vessels, including time in San Diego and Long Beach. He later lived in Florida and worked in construction and on automobiles. He was diagnosed with…
-
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 · California Court of Appeal · January 21, 2016 · in the opinion
Casey v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. (2016)
…701.) Accordingly, we conclude excluding reference to the first jury's determination that Kaiser Gypsum was 3.5 percent at fault did not prejudice Kaiser Gypsum. White v. Ford Motor Co. (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 13, 1996 · in the opinion
Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1996)
…in light of the evidence before it. (Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1995) 35 Cal. App.4th 604, 610 \[41 Cal. Rptr.2d 342\] (Ford).) Therefore, OC bore the burden of proving…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 17, 2017 · in the opinion
Phillips v. Honeywell International Inc. (2017)
…s determination of undue prejudice is subject to review under the abuse of discretion standard. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 147.) When weighing probative value against the danger of prejudice…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 6, 2013 · in the opinion
Klinger v. Alderete (2013)
…Klinger, Donadio learned that Alderete was suffering from lung cancer and not mesothelioma. Donadio also stated that the decision in Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15 (Campbell), issued on May 21…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 3, 1998 · in the opinion
Scheiding v. General Motors Corp. (1998)
…59 Cal.2d 57, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697, 377 P.2d 897, and Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 37 Cal.Rptr. 896, 391 P.2d 168.) Viad reasons, "Because we find…