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

Search

6 results for “Ford Motor Company”

  1. 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…

  2. 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)…

  3. 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    …at hand and the reasoning is sound [\588] and persuasive, citation to and reliance on the unpublished opinion is appropriate.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)…

  4. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 26, 2016 · in the opinion

    Schwartz v. Honeywell Internatl., Inc. (2016)

    …Cleveland, OH, for Ford Motor Co. General Electric Corporation, CT Corporation Systems, Cleveland, OH, for General Electric Corporation. Genuine Parts Company c/o Grant Norris SA, Columbus, OH, for Genuine Parts Company. Pneumo Abex Corp. Successor…

  5. 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…

  6. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · May 5, 2016 · in the opinion

    Watkins v. Affinia Group (2016)

    …702. Thus, the trial court should not accept the expert's opinion at face value; it must independently [\179] examine and evaluate the reliability of each expert's opinion. Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 8th Dist.