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

Search

63 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 4

  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 · Kentucky Court of Appeals · March 22, 2019

    Ford Motor Company v. Sheets (2019)

    …trial court's one-sentence order denying Ford Motor Company's summary judgment motion and remanded for the trial court to state the basis for its ruling, leaving Ford's up-the-ladder immunity claim undecided…

  3. Court case · Kentucky Court of Appeals · October 7, 2011

    Rehm v. Ford Motor Company (2011)

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict and judgment for Ford Motor Company against the Rehm family, and held Ford's cross-appeal moot while addressing its merits. Evidence rulings are reviewed for abuse of…

  4. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · December 5, 2005

    Snyder v. Ford Motor Co. (2005)

    …Workers' Compensation; Trial Procedure and Discovery Worksites: Clingerman facility; Ford Motor Company Lima plant; General Dynamics Lima facility; General Dynamics facility, Lima; Clingerman facility, Bellefontaine; Ford Motor Company, Lima employee General Dynamics facility Lima 1984-1993;…

  5. 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…

  6. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · January 25, 2019

    Johansen v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2019)

    The magistrate judge recommended granting Ford Motor Company's summary judgment motion on the negligence, failure-to-warn and punitive damages claims, because Johansen's brake exposure was de minimis and Ford owed no duty to…

  7. 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…

  8. Court case · Delaware Supreme Court · July 22, 2019

    Richards v. Copes-Vulcan, Inc. (2019)

    The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Copes-Vulcan, Ford and Goodyear and the denial of the Richards' request to supplement their expert report or for reargument. Under Ohio law, Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.96…

  9. 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 …

  10. Court case · U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · May 28, 2019 · in the opinion

    Jack v. Dco, LLC (2019)

    …those he encountered at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard." (Resp. DCo at 11; Resp. Ford at 12.) In particular, Plaintiffs emphasize that Mr. Jack testified in his deposition that, while he was working at the Shipyard…

  11. 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…

  12. Court case · Kentucky Court of Appeals · February 25, 2005

    Rehm v. Navistar International (2005)

    …the appellees (including Allied Chemical, DuPont, Ford, GE, Kentucky Utilities Ghent Powerhouse, LG&E Cane Run and Mill Creek), Louisville millwright Facilities owned by the appellees (including Allied Chemical, DuPont, Ford, GE, Kentucky Utilities Ghent Powerhouse…

  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 · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · May 2, 2016 · in the opinion

    Whelan v. Armstrong Int'l (2016)

    …Newark, argued the cause on May 2, 2016, and Sean M. Marotta argued the cause on May 16, 2018, for respondent Ford Motor Company (LeClair Ryan, attorneys; Robin Gnudi Kalocsay, Newark, and Michael D. Goldklang, on…

  15. Court case · New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division · May 16, 2018 · in the opinion

    Whelan v. Armstrong International Inc. (2018)

    …cause on May 2, 2016, and Sean M. Marotta argued the cause on May 16, 2018, for respondent Ford Motor Company (LeClair Ryan, attorneys; Robin Gnudi Kalocsay and Michael D. Goldklang, on the brief). Marc S…

  16. Court case · Tennessee Court of Appeals · July 22, 2019 · in the opinion

    Coffman v. Armstrong International, Inc. (2019)

    …J., dissenting). In some cases, it has proven difficult to apply. See, e.g., Stockton v. Ford Motor Company, No. W2016-01175-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 2021760, at [\12]-15 (Tenn. Ct. App., filed May…

  17. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama · June 22, 2015 · in the opinion

    Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2015)

    …("Consolidated Aluminum") (id. ¶ 6); (v) Dana Companies LLC, sued both individually, and, as successor-in-interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company ("Dana") (id. ¶ 7); (vi) Ford Motor Company ("Ford") (id. ¶ 8); and (vii) Unilever United States…

  18. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama · September 29, 2015 · in the opinion

    Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2015)

    …("Consolidated Aluminum") (id. ¶ 6); (v) Dana Companies LLC, sued both individually, and, as successor-in-interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company ("Dana") (id. ¶ 7); (vi) Ford Motor Company ("Ford") (id. ¶ 8); and (vii) Unilever United States…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama · October 29, 2013 · in the opinion

    Bobo v. Agco Corp. (2013)

    …Inc. ("Consolidated Aluminum"); (v) Dana Companies LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company ("Dana"); (vi) Ford Motor Company ("Ford"); (vii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife"); (viii) TVA; and (ix) Unilever…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama · August 25, 2014 · in the opinion

    Bobo v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2014)

    …Inc. ("Consolidated Aluminum"); (v) Dana Companies LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company ("Dana"); (vi) Ford Motor Company ("Ford"); (vii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife"); (viii) TVA; and (ix) Unilever…