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

Search

10 results for “Ford Motor Company”

  1. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · February 20, 1996

    Estate of Orecny v. Ford Motor Co. (1996)

    The appeals court reversed the trial court's order granting Ford Motor Company's Civ.R. 60(B) motion to vacate the settlement, held that the settlement did not abate on the widow's death, and…

  2. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · September 7, 2017

    Heaton v. Ford Motor Co. (2017)

    Paul Heaton, as executor of the estate of Robert Brawley, sued several companies, including McCord Corporation, alleging that Brawley's mesothelioma and death resulted from asbestos exposure. Against McCord, he claimed Brawley was exposed while repairing…

  3. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · December 5, 2005

    Snyder v. Ford Motor Co. (2005)

    …Workers' Compensation; Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: Clingerman facility; Ford Motor Company Lima plant; General Dynamics Lima facility; General Dynamics facility, Lima; Clingerman facility, Bellefontaine; Ford Motor Company, Lima employee General Dynamics facility Lima 1984-1993;…

  4. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · April 4, 2017

    Hart v. Honeywell International (2017)

    …warn claims, but denied it to Honeywell and Ford on the brake design defect claim, so the plaintiffs' case continued against those two; Ford's sanctions motion was denied. Under Ohio's Product Liability Act, a…

  5. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · June 3, 2010 · in the opinion

    Dean v. Bur. OF Workers'comp. (2010)

    …(2008), 176 Ohio App.3d 453, 458, 892 N.E.2d 493, 497, 2008-Ohio-2377 at ¶ 17 Snyder v. Ford Motor Co., Third Dist. No. 1-05-41, 2005-Ohio-6415, ¶ 31. As a prerequisite…

  6. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · June 28, 2019 · in the opinion

    Blakely v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2019)

    …230 (1966). See also Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co. v. Muething, 65 Ohio St.3d 273, 278-279 (1992); Vidensek v. Ford Motor Co., 9th Dist. Medina No. 2120-M, 1992 WL 393171, [\2] (Dec. 30, 1992)…

  7. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio · May 2, 2003 · in the opinion

    Lindstrom v. AC Products Liability Trust (2003)

    …at hand and the reasoning is sound [\588] and persuasive, citation to and reliance on the unpublished opinion is appropriate. Bob Tatone Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 197 F.3d 787, 790 (6th Cir.1999)…

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · Ohio Supreme Court · April 3, 2008

    State EX rel. Pilkington North America, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (2008)

    …Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' mandamus grant and held that the Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in naming Pilkington, successor to Libbey Owens Ford's self-insured claims, as the amenable employer…