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

Search

27 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 2

  1. 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…

  2. 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…

  3. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · December 11, 2012

    Gaskill v. Abex Corporation (2012)

    …Honeywell, Volkswagen and Ford prevailed. Dismissal with prejudice is a permissible sanction where a party commits fraud on the court by deliberately lying about his work history in discovery and no lesser sanction would suffice. The…

  4. 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…

  5. Court case · Louisiana Court of Appeals · May 22, 1996 · in the opinion

    Egan v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (1996)

    …is to apply the law of the state with the most significant contacts. Lee v. Ford Motor Company, supra. \ \ \ \ \ \ \[If\] a true conflict exists, the second step is to determine which state has the most significant…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · November 5, 1997 · in the opinion

    Ciletti v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation, 1997)

    …and a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner." Denny v. Ford Motor Company, 87 N.Y.2d 248…

  7. 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…

  8. Court case · U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit · January 27, 2009 · in the opinion

    Martin v. Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company (2009)

    …II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review As this is a diversity action, Kentucky substantive law applies. Gahafer v. Ford Motor Co., 328 F.3d 859, 861 (6th Cir. 2003). Procedurally, federal standards for summary judgment govern…

  9. Court case · California Court of Appeal · January 27, 2021 · in the opinion

    Morgan v. JM Manufacturing Co., Inc. (2021)

    …mind. Morgan's argument relies on and quotes from Romo v. Ford Motor Co. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1115 \[122 Cal.Rptr.2d 139\] (Romo), vacated on other grounds in Ford Motor Co. v. Romo…

  10. Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · March 4, 2009 · in the opinion

    Mason v. Mt. St. Joseph, Inc. (2009)

    …474, 155 P.3d 52 (2007); Simonsen v. Ford Motor Co., 196 Or.App. 460, 102 P.3d 710 (2004) (liberal construction of operative pleading in assessing sufficiency of claims under applicable statute of limitations). In…

  11. 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…

  12. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · September 5, 2013 · in the opinion

    Nelson v. Airco Welders Supply (2013)

    …ENGINEERING, FORD MOTOR CO., FOSECO, INC., FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, GARLOCK, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS CORP., GEORGE V. HAMILTON, INC., GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, GOULD PUMPS, INC., GREEN, TWEED & COMAPNY, INC., HAJOCA PLUMBING SUPPLY COMPANY, HARNISCHFEGER…

  13. Court case · Missouri Court of Appeals · June 19, 2012 · in the opinion

    Wagner v. Bondex International, Inc. (2012)

    …Montgomery, 331 S.W.3d at 335. "Whether the plaintiff made a submissible case is a question of law subject to de novo review." Moore v. Ford Motor Co., 332 S.W.3d 749, 756 (Mo…

  14. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · August 5, 2014 · in the opinion

    Nelson v. Airco Welders Supply (2014)

    …Engineering, Ford Motor Co., Foseco, Inc., Foster Wheeler Corporation, Garlock, Inc., General Electric Company, General Motors Corp., George V. Hamilton, Inc., Georgia- Pacific Corporation, Gould Pumps, Inc., Green, Tweed & Company, Inc., Hajoca Plumbing Supply Company, Harnischfeger…

  15. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 27, 2009 · in the opinion

    Mahoney v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (2009)

    …supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 795-796; Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 798-799.) Generally, it is improper for counsel to argue facts outside the evidence, or to engage…

  16. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · August 9, 2021 · in the opinion

    Paroni EX rel. Estate OF Paroni v. General Electric UK Holdings Ltd. (2021)

    …474-75). To satisfy this minimum-contacts inquiry, the Court "recogniz\[es\] two kinds of personal jurisdiction: general (sometimes called all-purpose) jurisdiction and specific (sometimes called case-linked) jurisdiction." Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth…

  17. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · November 18, 2009 · in the opinion

    Estate of Hicks v. Dana Companies, LLC (2009)

    …design choice, and not on the attributes of the product itself." Id. at 342, 528 A.2d at 594 (citing Lenhardt v. Ford Motor Co., 102 Wash.2d 208, 683 P.2d 1097 (1984)). Accordingly, the…

  18. Court case · California Court of Appeal · August 25, 2009 · in the opinion

    Campbell v. American Standard, Inc. (2009)

    …suitable place for the action, the court must consider a variety of factors, including whether the defendants are amenable to personal jurisdiction in the alternative forum. (Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1995…

  19. Court case · Pennsylvania Supreme Court · February 19, 2020 · in the opinion

    Roverano v. John Crane, Inc. (2020)

    …actual, product-specific causation in many asbestos cases, the courts have come to accept abstract assessments of increased risk as proxies for traditional substantial-factor causation. See Rost v. Ford Motor Co., 637 Pa. 625, 668…

  20. Court case · Florida District Court of Appeal · December 23, 2009 · in the opinion

    Honeywell International, Inc. v. Guilder (2009)

    …redact this portion of the letter for use at trial. See MCI Exp., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 832 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Next, we turn to the second issue concerning the exclusion…