Search

• State: Maryland ×
• Topic: gaskets and packing ×
• Clear filters

7 results for “Ford Motor Company”

1. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · May 5, 2017 · in the opinion

   Dugger v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017)

   …Inc., Defendant, represented by Pamela Thomas Broache, Goldberg Segalla. Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Vincent J. Palmiotto, DeHay & Elliston, LLP & Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Ford Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michelle…

2. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · December 18, 2015 · in the opinion

   May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2015)

   …strict liability analysis. Common sense tells us that the pumps were what Respondents sold to the Navy, and the gaskets and packing are included within that product. We have studied Ford Motor Co. v. Wood and…

3. Court case · Maryland Court of Appeals · June 11, 2002 · in the opinion

   Crane, Inc. v. Scribner (2002)

   …2d at 996. In adopting 1990 as the critical date when the cause of action arose, the court, though supposedly applying Grimshaw, essentially applied the manifestation test. In Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md. App…

4. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · July 25, 2016 · in the opinion

   Arbogast v. AW Chesterton Co. (2016)

   …Grilli Marcus, Whiteford [\810] Taylor and Preston LLP, R. Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP, F. Ford Loker, Jr., Joshua Franklin Kahn, Leianne S. McEvoy, Michael L. Haslup, Matthew R. Schroll, Robin…

5. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · October 3, 2014

   May v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2014)

   …and sold by others. The circuit court granted the pump makers summary judgment. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. It held that under its earlier decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, and following courts in…

6. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 15, 2019 · in the opinion

   Ament v. John Crane-Houdalille, Inc. (2019)

   …court not sustained objections to those questions below. The Aments further assert that "Dr. Frank's testimony and opinions were exactly what was permitted and approved in" Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., 433 Md. 137 (2013)…

7. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · September 29, 2016 · in the opinion

   Rhodes v. McIC, Inc. (2016)

   …Joshua Franklin Kahn, Michael Alan Brown, Michael L. Haslup, Matthew Thomas Wagman, Alicia N. Ritchie, Jonathan James Huber, F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Patrick C. Smith, R. Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Steven J. Parrott…