11 results for “Ford Motor Company”
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · February 21, 2017
Fish v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017)
The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Ford Motor Company's motion for a protective order limiting the plaintiffs' 54 Rule 30(b)(6) areas of inquiry, largely for Ford, allowed the plaintiffs…
-
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, 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, 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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · February 1, 1999 · in the opinion
Owens Corning v. Bauman (1999)
…the result is that Grimshaw and Abate are inconsistent and we, accordingly, should reject our holding construing the meaning of "arises" in Grimshaw. Owens Corning also contends that Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md.App…
-
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…
-
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)…
-
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…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · January 3, 2017 · in the opinion
Rhodes v. Mcic, Inc. (2017)
…Dehay and Elliston LLP. GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by David J. Quigg, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC…