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

Search

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

  1. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · June 10, 2008

    Ford Motor Company v. Miller (2008)

    The Texas Court of Appeals reversed the $10,000,000 jury verdict and rendered judgment for Ford Motor Company, holding Ford owed no duty to Carolyn Miller and that John Roland had no compensable injury or…

  2. Court case · Michigan Supreme Court · July 25, 2007

    In re Certified Question From the Fourteenth District Court OF Appeals OF Texas (2007)

    …appeals court in the negative, holding that Ford owed no duty to Carolyn Miller, which favored Ford and went against the Miller plaintiffs' $9.5 million Texas verdict theory. Under Michigan law, a duty depends on…

  3. 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…

  4. Court case · Kentucky Supreme Court · August 23, 2007 · in the opinion

    General Elec. Co. v. Cain (2007)

    …judgment as a matter of law. Ford Motor Company Ford Motor Company designed, manufactured, and sold motor vehicles during the period from 1975 to 1982. Rehm worked at two Ford plants in Louisville while employed by…

  5. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · December 29, 2016 · in the opinion

    In re Asbestos Litigation Charlevoix v. CBS Corporation (2016)

    …Singewald, White & Williams. Ford Motor Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Christian J. Singewald, White & Williams. CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. Caterpillar Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania · February 11, 2021 · in the opinion

    Data v. AO Smith Corporation (2021)

    …INC., AND ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY; FLOWSERVE US INC., SUCCESSOR TO VALTEK INTERNATIONAL; FLSMIDTH DORR-OLIVER, INC., AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO KEELER/DORR-OLIVER BOILER COMPANY; FLSMIDTH, INC., FMC CORPORATION, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, FOSTER WHEELER LLC…

  7. 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…

  8. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · February 16, 2017 · in the opinion

    Charlevoix v. John Crane (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)

    …Fiat Allis North America, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter S. Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. Ford Motor Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Christian J. Singewald, White & Williams. John Crane Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan…

  9. Court case · Oregon Court of Appeals · March 31, 2005 · in the opinion

    West v. Allied Signal, Inc. (2005)

    …Chrysler Corporation; Ferodo America, Inc., a Delaware corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to Nuturn Corporation; Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation; General Motors, a Delaware corporation; G.I. Joe's, an Oregon corporation; Metalclad…

  10. 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…

  11. Court case · Rhode Island Superior Court · March 5, 2015

    Jones v. 84 Lumber Company (2015)

    …four areas of Tennessee law: modified comparative fault, a $750,000 cap on noneconomic damages, allocating fault to nonparties (including bankrupt companies), and the innocent retailer statute. The plaintiffs agreed Tennessee law applied but said it…

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. 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…

  15. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · May 31, 2016 · in the opinion

    Stein v. Pfizer Inc. (2016)

    …law); Ford Motor Co. v. Mathis, 322 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1963) (applying Texas law); Putnam v. Erie City Mfg. Co., 338 F.2d 911 (5th Cir. 1964) (applying Texas law); Standard Motor Co. v…

  16. 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…

  17. 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…

  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 · Illinois Appellate Court · September 5, 2018 · in the opinion

    McKinney v. Hobart Bros. Co. (2018)

    …showing not only that Frank himself was qualified but also that his reliance on Dement's work was (1) customary in Frank's field and (2) reasonable. See Connelly v. General Motors Corp., 184 Ill. App…

  20. Court case · Texas Court of Appeals · August 26, 2010 · in the opinion

    Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Bostic (2010)

    …232 S.W.3d at 770 (quoting Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton, 898 S.W.2d 773, 775 (Tex. 1995)); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Ledesma, 242 S.W.3d 32, 46 (Tex. 2007). Thus…