38 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 2
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · October 16, 2006
McPhee v. Ford Motor Company (2006)
The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Ford Motor Company, rejecting Marvin McPhee's claim over his wife Elaine's fatal mesothelioma because his medical expert's declaration contradicted his deposition and was too conclusory…
-
Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit · February 22, 2021
Jack v. Dco, LLC (2021)
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Union Pacific Railroad and judgment as a matter of law for Ford and DCo, so the Jacks lost on all claims. Under Washington law, a take-home exposure claim…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · August 10, 2018 · in the opinion
Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC (2018)
(Ford MTE Castleman at 6.) However, the court notes that pursuant to Rule 703, an expert may disclose otherwise inadmissible underlying facts or data "if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · September 17, 2018 · in the opinion
Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (2018)
…the brands of brakes he worked on at Dexter, Mr. Jack testified that "\[s\]ome of them \[were\] Ford." (Id. at 131:17-20.) When Plaintiffs' counsel asked Mr. Jack if he used the arc grinder …
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · May 28, 2019 · in the opinion
Jack v. Dco, LLC (2019)
…those he encountered at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard." (Resp. DCo at 11; Resp. Ford at 12.) In particular, Plaintiffs emphasize that Mr. Jack testified in his deposition that, while he was working at the Shipyard…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · February 22, 2022 · in the opinion
Budd v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2022)
…v. KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; Appellant, Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc.; Certainteed Corporation; DAP, Inc.; Ford Motor Company; Honeywell International Inc., Individually and as successor to Allied Signal, Inc. and The Bendix Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · July 1, 2019 · in the opinion
Noll v. Special Electric Company, Inc. (2019)
…INC; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC; HERCULES INCORPORATED; HONEWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.; INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION f/k/a THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC.; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY INC.…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · August 8, 2011 · in the opinion
Wangen v. AW Chesterton Company (2011)
…CHYRSLER CORPORATION; CONAIR CORPORATION; CRANE CO.; CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to MUNDET CORK COMPANY; DURABLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY; DURAMETALLIC CORPORATION; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FOSTER WHEELER USA CORPORATION; GARDNER DENVER, INC…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · March 20, 2006 · in the opinion
Moore v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006)
…HARDWARE; EXPERT CYCLE; FIDALGO INSULATION; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.; GARY BANG; GATKE CORPORATION; GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; GLOBAL MOTORSPORTS GROUP; GREAT WALL MANUFACTURING; HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT, INC.; HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY, INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · June 29, 2015 · in the opinion
Noll v. American Biltrite, Inc. (2015)
…Inc.; Ford Motor Company; General Electric Company; Georgia-Pacific, LLC; Hercules Incorporated; Honeywell International, Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation, f/k/a The Carborundum Company; Ingersoll-Rand Company; J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.; Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc…
-
Court case · Washington Supreme Court · June 8, 2017 · in the opinion
Noll v. American Biltrite Inc. (2017)
…Inc.; Ford Motor Company; General Electric Company; Georgia-Pacific LLC; Hercules Incorporated; Honeywell International Inc.; Industrial Holdings Corporation f/k/a The Carborundum Company; Ingersoll-Rand Company; J-M Manufacturing Company Inc.; Kaiser Gypsum Company Inc.…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · September 30, 2018 · in the opinion
Jack v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec, LLC (2018)
…DEHAY & ELLISTON LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Madderra, BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM & Richard D. Ross, BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Harry S. Johnson, WHITEFORD TAYLOR PRESTON LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel K…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · October 23, 2017 · in the opinion
Jack v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd. (2017)
…Seal Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP. Flowserve US Inc, Defendant, represented by Marc Marshall Carlton, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Randy J. Aliment, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP. Ford Motor Company…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · September 8, 2015 · in the opinion
Estenson v. Caterpillar Inc. (2015)
…CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in- interest to MUNDET CORK COMPANY); CUMMINS, INC.; DANA COMPANIES LLC (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to VICTOR GASKET MANUFACTURING COMPANY); FORD MOTOR COMPANY…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · April 19, 2018 · in the opinion
Jack v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (2018)
…Randy J. Aliment, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Mark J. Fucile, FUCILE & REISING. Gardner-Denver Inc, Defendant, represented by Claude Bosworth, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · April 3, 2017 · in the opinion
Woo v. General Electric Company (2017)
…9\]. . . . In addition, there are some cases where the combination of two sound products creates a dangerous condition, and both manufacturers have a duty to warn. \[Ford Motor Co. v. Wood, 119 Md. App. 1, 34…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · May 28, 2019 · in the opinion
Leren v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2019)
…Id. at 452. \[22\] Id. \[23\] Id. \[24\] Id. at 452-53. \[25\] Id. at 453. \[26\] Id. at 456 (quoting Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co., 61 Cal. 2d 256, 391 P.2d 168, 37 Cal…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · December 21, 2021 · in the opinion
United States Fidelity and Guaranty v. Ulbricht (2021)
…F/V St. Patrick, 816 F.2d 1345, 1352 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Polk v. Ford Motor Co., 529 F.2d 259, 271 (8th Cir. 1976)), opinion modified on reh'g, 866 F.2d 318 (9th…
-
Court case · Washington Court of Appeals · February 19, 2020 · in the opinion
Coogan v. Borg-Warner Morse Tec Inc. (2020)
…We agree with the Coogans. a. Legal Principles In Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., the Supreme Court adopted the rule of strict liability for product manufacturers stated in § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Am…
-
Court case · Washington Supreme Court · December 11, 2008 · in the opinion
Braaten v. Saberhagen Holdings (2008)
…in Simonetta, common law product liability claims like those here\[4\] are governed by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965),\[5\] adopted in Ulmer v. Ford Motor Co., 75 Wash.2d 522, 531-32, 452…