37 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 2
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · July 15, 2020
Coates v. Ford Motor Company (2020)
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment for Ford Motor Company after retrial, rejecting the Coates estate's challenges to the denial of partial summary judgment, the denial of a new trial, and the refusal…
-
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 · Georgia Court of Appeals · March 10, 2022 · in the opinion
Sinyard v. Georgia Power Company (2022)
…to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Sinyard was aware of the specific health hazards posed by working with asbestos and the presence and location of asbestos in Ford's Hapeville plant…
-
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 · 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 · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 11, 2018
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Coates (2018)
The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgments for Coates against Mack Trucks and Ford on negligent failure to warn, and reversed the judgments for CertainTeed on Mack's and Ford's cross-claims, remanding for…
-
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 · Kentucky Court of Appeals · February 14, 2014 · in the opinion
McGuire v. Lorillard Tobacco Company (2014)
…hazard of the occupational disease." Here, Bill alleged that his last occupational exposure occurred while he worked for Ford Motor Company from 1978 until 2002. The second is the applicable statute of repose. Prior to 1986…
-
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 · California Court of Appeal · July 25, 2014 · in the opinion
Lovelace v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2014)
Ford Motor Company During Trial Abex contends the judgment must be reversed "based on the \[trial\] court's prejudicial decision to apply Campbell mid-trial." Abex characterizes "the publication of Campbell" as "\[a\]n unexpected event…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · April 14, 2017 · in the opinion
Evans v. 3M Co. (2017)
…friction products sold or distributed by defendant Ford Motor Company" (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig, 2017 Slip Op 01523 at 5, supra).\[2\] Those products were brakes, clutches and manifold gaskets in Ford vehicles…
-
Court case · New York Supreme Court · June 20, 2017
Altman v. Ford Motor Co. (In re New York City Asbetos Litigation, 2017)
…Benicia Pump Repair Benicia 1950s-1980s; helper in boiler and furnace removal and installation stepfather's boiler and furnace business 1950s; worker at a construction products company 1970s; handyman 1970s and 1980s; union carpenter various construction…
-
Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 17, 2024 · in the opinion
Constantine v. Lenox Instrument Company (2024)
…present purposes. Generally speaking, motions in limine are used to preclude the presentation of evidence that a party considers inadmissible or prejudicial. See Parr v. Ford Motor Co., 109 A.3d 682, 690 (Pa. Super. 2014…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · April 10, 2013 · in the opinion
Webb v. Special Electric Company, Inc. (2013)
…63; Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 256, 262-263.) Strict liability is justified as a means to spread the costs of injuries resulting from dangerous and defective products among the products' manufacturers…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 22, 2024 · in the opinion
Williams v. JM Manufacturing Company, Inc. (2024)
…the then-leading case on whether defendants owed a duty of care to prevent take-home or secondary asbestos exposure under California law, Campbell v. Ford Motor Co. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 15. (4 Cetrulo…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 21, 2016 · in the opinion
Casey v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. Inc. (2016)
…701.) Accordingly, we conclude excluding reference to the first jury's determination that Kaiser Gypsum was 3.5 percent at fault did not prejudice Kaiser Gypsum. White v. Ford Motor Co. (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F…
-
Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · December 28, 2000 · in the opinion
Hollingsworth v. Connor (2000)
…uniform, but an "injury" does not arise until symptoms are manifested while the harm for a fatal and irreversible "disease" arises as soon as the cellular change develops. Our recent decisions in Ford \[Motor Co. v…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · February 26, 2014 · in the opinion
Quirin v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. (2014)
…a substantial factor causing an injury. Id., 177 Ill.Dec. 379, 603 N.E.2d at 455-57. Cf. Ford Motor [\920] Co. v. Boomer, 285 Va. 141, 736 S.E.2d 724, 729-30 (2013)…