138 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 7
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · March 26, 2014
Scott v. Ford Motor Company (2014)
The court affirmed the judgment and compensatory damages for Patrick and Sharon Scott against Ford Motor Co. on the failure to warn claims, and reversed the ruling that barred punitive damages, remanding for a trial on…
-
Court case · Illinois Appellate Court · May 11, 2023
LaFever v. Ford Motor Company (2023)
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting plaintiff Trudy LaFever a new trial after a jury verdict for Ford Motor Company, finding no abuse of discretion. A trial court's grant of a…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 7, 2019
Michel v. Ford Motor Company (2019)
The court denied Ford's and Cummins's motions to exclude or limit the expert testimony of Dr. Staggs, Dr. Finkelstein and Christopher Depasquale, so the plaintiffs' experts may testify. An expert's specific-causation opinion…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · April 16, 2013
Webber v. Ford Motor Company (2013)
The Superior Court reversed the trial court's orders opening and vacating the judgment entered for Ford, Abex and Honeywell and granting a mistrial, and denied the Webbers' motion to quash, so the defense judgment stood…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · January 7, 2019
Michel v. Ford Motor Company (2019)
The court denied Cummins Inc.'s and Ford Motor Company's joint motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs (Michel's survivors) keep their claims against both defendants. Plaintiffs must show exposure to asbestos from the…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · February 20, 2019
Michel v. Ford Motor Co. (2019)
…court granted Ford's motion to quash the trial subpoena to Matthew Fyie, granted plaintiffs leave to designate Fyie's deposition testimony, and granted Ford's motion to strike plaintiffs' late objections to Ford's counterdesignations…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · May 23, 2019
Michel v. Ford Motor Co. (2019)
…court granted Ford Motor Company's motion to dismiss only as to plaintiffs' wrongful death employer liability claim, which was dismissed with prejudice, and otherwise denied it, so plaintiffs' other wrongful death claims against Ford continue…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · February 20, 2019
Michel v. Ford Motor Co. (2019)
…premises and employer liability claims against Ford, found strict products liability claims already pleaded, and said a continuance would cure prejudice to Ford. A party seeking to amend after the scheduling-order deadline must show good…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · January 8, 1998
Ford Motor v. Wood (1998)
…of Special Appeals reversed the judgment for Mrs. Wood against Ford Motor Company for insufficient proof that her husband was exposed to Ford's brake and clutch products, and affirmed the judgment for the Grewe plaintiffs…
-
Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · January 10, 2013
Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer (2013)
The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the jury verdict and judgment for the estate against Ford and Honeywell (Bendix) because of the "substantial contributing factor" jury instructions, and remanded for further proceedings under a multiple-sufficient…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina · September 27, 2019
Ratcliff v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (2019)
The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Ford, Brenntag Specialties, Whittaker Clark & Daniels and Honeywell because Ratcliff's claims were time-barred, and recommended terminating the other pending motions as moot. Under North Carolina law…
-
Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · March 24, 2022
Marino v. Abex Corporation (2022)
The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for plaintiff Deborah Marino against Ford Motor Company, upholding the discovery sanctions; it found one hearsay ruling erroneous but harmless. A trial court may sanction a party for violating a…
-
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 · New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division · February 26, 2015
Finerty v. Abex Corp. (2015)
…the denial of Ford USA's motion for summary judgment, but reversed the denial of Ford UK's motion and dismissed the complaint against Ford UK for lack of personal jurisdiction. A parent company is not…
-
Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · August 20, 2015
Oddo v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd. (2015)
…affirmed Ford's liability, reallocated fault to Ford 65%, Union Carbide 25% and Higgins 10%, and amended the survival damages award against Ford, so the plaintiffs lost against Southern Talc but kept their judgment against Ford…
-
Court case · New York Court of Appeals · May 3, 2016
Finerty v. Abex Corp. (2016)
The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and granted Ford Motor Company's (Ford USA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, ruling against plaintiffs Finerty. A parent corporation that is…
-
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 · New York Supreme Court · July 10, 2006
Berger v. Amchem Prods. (2006)
The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motions (joined by Ford and General Motors) to preclude evidence that brake and clutch dust causes asbestos disease, to dismiss the complaints, and for a Frye hearing, so the plaintiffs (Berger…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 14, 2003
Cossman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2003)
The Court of Appeal affirmed the nonsuit for the friction-product defendants (DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Mercedes-Benz USA, Volkswagen of America and Pneumo Abex), holding that Indiana's two-year statute of limitations barred the Cossmans' claims…
-
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 …