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

Search

48 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 3

  1. 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…

  2. 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…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. 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…

  11. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · March 19, 2018

    Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2018)

    …Nevada Bell and AT & T, Inc., found jurisdiction over Ford and AT & T Corp., but dismissed the claims against those two without prejudice as conclusory, allowing plaintiffs to amend. A foreign corporation registered in Pennsylvania consents…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · New York Supreme Court · August 8, 2012

    Adler v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2012)

    Twenty-two plaintiffs, all represented by the same lawyers, sued more than eighty defendants in New York County for asbestos-related injuries or deaths. Seven had lung cancer, fourteen had pleural mesothelioma, and Glenda Vega had peritoneal…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · April 3, 1992 · in the opinion

    Sealover v. Carey Canada (1992)

    …in Burke, supra, leave no doubt that the actual knowledge standard applies to this case. See also: Tunis Brothers Company, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 952 F.2d 715, 740 (3d Cir.1991). Thus, to recover…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · January 14, 1987 · in the opinion

    Marshall v. Celotex Corp. (1987)

    …defendants should be \jointly and severally' liable." (Plaintiff's Complaint at pp. 7-8). A case decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals subsequent to Abel is Cousineau v. Ford Motor Company, 140 Mich.App. 19…

  16. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 15, 2014 · in the opinion

    Kesner v. Superior Court of Alameda County (2014)

    …landowner's premises. The claim against Ford Motor Company asserted in Campbell was based on Ford's passive involvement as owner of the plant in which an independent contractor was installing asbestos insulation. Plaintiff's claim…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · May 12, 1987 · in the opinion

    Marshall v. Celotex Corp. (1987)

    …by demonstrating defendants' concerted activity, and proximate cause, by demonstrating that defendants' conduct "was so significant and important a cause that \[defendants\] should be legally responsible." Cousineau v. Ford Motor Company, 140 Mich.App. 19, 35…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania · May 24, 2010 · in the opinion

    Larson v. Georgia Pacific (In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation, 2010)

    …806 (\Admissibility decisions focus on the expert's method and reasoning; credibility decisions arise after admissibility has been determined.')." Pineda v. Ford Motor Company, 520 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir.2008). In evaluating whether a…

  19. Court case · Georgia Court of Appeals · March 20, 2012 · in the opinion

    Union Carbide Corporation v. Fields (2012)

    …Defendants appeal the trial court's ruling only with respect to the following 16 nonparty entities: Georgia Power Company ("Georgia Power"); Ford Motor Company ("Ford"); Genuine Parts Company ("Genuine Parts"); Chrysler LLC ("Chrysler"); General Motors ("GM")…

  20. Court case · New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division · April 9, 2020 · in the opinion

    Nemeth v. Brenntag N. Am. (2020)

    …the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that defendant Ford Motor Company's conduct was a proximate cause of the decedent's injuries pursuant to the standards set forth in \[Parker\] and…