19 results for “Ford Motor Company”
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · June 10, 2008
Ford Motor Company v. Miller (2008)
The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the $10,000,000 jury verdict and rendered judgment for Ford Motor Company, holding Ford owed no duty to Carolyn Miller and that John Roland had no compensable injury or…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · October 24, 2002
Vaughn v. Ford Motor Co. (2002)
The court of appeals affirmed the take-nothing judgment for Ford, General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, Allied Signal, Borg-Warner and Uniroyal, holding the exclusion of plaintiff's experts was an abuse of discretion but harmless because…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · September 23, 2004
In re Sears, Roebuck and Co. (2004)
The court of appeals conditionally granted Sears and Ford's mandamus petitions, ordering the trial court to vacate its discovery orders because the requests for workers' compensation files, board minutes and violation records were overly broad…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · May 4, 2006 · in the opinion
Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2006)
…893 S.W.2d at 518. A. The Applicable Law. A special law is defined as one "\limited to a particular class of persons distinguished by some characteristic other than geography.'" Ford Motor Co. v. Sheldon…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · January 8, 1998 · in the opinion
Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Bilder (1998)
…covered with asbestos dust which ultimately caused Kay's death. Recovery under the strict liability doctrine is not limited to users and consumers. Darryl v. Ford Motor Co., 440 S.W.2d 630, 633 (Tex.1969)…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · August 29, 2008 · in the opinion
Satterfield v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2008)
…because it is applicable to a substantial class and its classifications are reasonable. A special law is limited to a particular class of persons distinguished by some [\240] characteristic other than geography. Ford Motor Co. v…
-
Court case · Texas Supreme Court · July 11, 2014 · in the opinion
Bostic v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (2014)
…1965). \[44\] RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL HARM § 26 (2010). \[45\] See id. § 26 cmt. j. \[46\] 232 S.W.3d at 772. \[47\] Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer, 285 Va. 141…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas · October 24, 2019 · in the opinion
Williams v. Avon Products, Inc. (2019)
…2:17-CV-86, 2017 WL 3033425, at [\4] (S.D. Tex. July 18, 2017) (quoting Garcia v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:12-CV-181, 2013 WL 12137090, at [\3] (S.D. Tex. May 10…
-
Court case · Texas Supreme Court · June 5, 1998 · in the opinion
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone (1998)
…W.2d at 30. Once the defendant does so, information which might otherwise be irrelevant and not subject to discovery becomes both relevant and discoverable. See generally Ford Motor Co. v. Leggat, 904 S.W.2d…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas · March 1, 1983 · in the opinion
Carter v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp. (1983)
…Blickman, Inc. v. Chilton, 114 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin 1938), no writ; Ford Motor Co. v. Mathis, 322 F.2d 267, 272-74 (5th Cir.1963). These findings, in turn, entailed a…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · December 19, 2019 · in the opinion
Union Carbide Corporation v. Torres (2019)
…810 (Tex. 2005). More than a scintilla of evidence exists when the evidence rises to a level that would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions. Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway, 135…
-
Court case · Texas Supreme Court · October 22, 2010 · in the opinion
Robinson v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc. (2010)
…cited in Lucas v. United States, 757 S.W.2d 687, 700 (Tex. 1988); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Sheldon, 22 S.W.3d 444, 456 (Tex. 2000) (defining a "special law" as one that…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · March 2, 2021 · in the opinion
Neely EX rel. Estate OF Goehring v. Union Carbide Corporation (2021)
…record indicates that the Union Carbide products at issue contained chrysotile fibers, but none of the attached studies specifically looked at that type of fiber. See Yates v. Ford Motor Co., 113 F. Supp. 3d 841…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · February 27, 2006 · in the opinion
In re Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (2006)
…is an extraordinary remedy, available only when a trial court clearly abuses its discretion and when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex.2005…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · August 26, 2010 · in the opinion
Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Bostic (2010)
…232 S.W.3d at 770 (quoting Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton, 898 S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex. 1995)); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 46 (Tex. 2007). Thus…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas · September 25, 2006 · in the opinion
Jacobs v. Tapscott (2006)
…disclosures is just that—to supplement. Such disclosures are not intended to provide an extension of the expert designation and report production deadline." Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320…
-
Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · March 11, 1999 · in the opinion
North American Refractory Co. v. Easter (1999)
…Corp. v. Valdez, 921 S.W.2d 444, 448 (Tex.App.— Corpus Christi 1996, orig. proceeding); Lone Star Ford, Inc. v. McCormick, 838 S.W.2d 734, 737 (Tex.App.—Houston \[1st Dist.\] 1992, writ denied)…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas · April 12, 2007 · in the opinion
Jacobs v. Tapscott (2007)
…legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict." Hodges v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 474 F.3d 188, 195 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Ford v. Cimarron Ins. Co., 230 F.3d 828, 830 (5th Cir.2000))…
-
Court case · Texas Supreme Court · July 14, 1998 · in the opinion
In re Ethyl Corp. (1998)
…51 F.3d 1293, 1299 (7 th Cir.) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in forcing the "defendants to stake their companies on the outcome of a single jury trial, or be forced by…