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

Search

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

  1. 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…

  2. 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…

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. 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…

  6. 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…

  7. 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…

  8. 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…

  9. 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…

  10. 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;…

  11. 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…

  12. 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…

  13. 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…

  14. 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…

  15. 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…

  16. 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…

  17. 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…

  18. 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 …

  19. 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…

  20. 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…