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

Search

228 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 12

  1. Court case · Maryland Court of Special Appeals · June 29, 2012

    Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2012)

    The Court of Special Appeals vacated the judgments for the Dixon plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company and remanded for a new trial, because the trial court should not have admitted the plaintiffs' expert's causation opinion…

  2. Court case · California Court of Appeal · October 15, 2007

    Honer v. Ford Motor Company (2007)

    The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgments for Ford Motor Company and Merck & Co. and remanded with directions to deny both motions, so plaintiff Eileen Honer prevailed on appeal. Under Code of Civil Procedure section…

  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 · Maryland Court of Appeals · July 25, 2013

    Dixon v. Ford Motor Company (2013)

    …the intermediate appellate court, reinstated the jury verdicts for the Dixon plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company, and reversed the trial court's judgment for Ford on its cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific, which won back the…

  5. Court case · California Court of Appeal · May 21, 2012

    Campbell v. Ford Motor Company (2012)

    The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for plaintiff Honer (continued by her daughter Mary Campbell) against Ford, holding Ford owed her no duty, so Ford prevailed. Under the Rowland factors as clarified in Cabral, an…

  6. Court case · Pennsylvania Superior Court · May 19, 2014

    Rost v. Ford Motor Company (2014)

    The Superior Court affirmed the judgment for Richard and Joyce Rost against Ford Motor Company, rejecting Ford's appeal and the Rosts' cross-appeal. Betz v. Pneumo Abex does not bar all 'any exposure' expert opinion…

  7. Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 5, 2017

    Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company (2017)

    …of Appeal affirmed the judgment for Exxon Mobil, Ford and Rossmoor, rejecting plaintiffs' challenges to the summary adjudication for Exxon, the nonsuit for Rossmoor, the jury instructions on Ford, and the defense verdict for Exxon. An…

  8. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · February 3, 2011

    Welsh v. Ford Motor Co. (2011)

    …new trial, so the widow Sylvia Welsh won and Ford Motor Company lost. A workers' compensation claimant must show by a preponderance that the disease was contracted through injurious exposure in the course of employment. Coworker…

  9. 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…

  10. Court case · Ohio Court of Appeals · September 7, 2017

    Heaton v. Ford Motor Co. (2017)

    Paul Heaton, as executor of the estate of Robert Brawley, sued several companies, including McCord Corporation, alleging that Brawley's mesothelioma and death resulted from asbestos exposure. Against McCord, he claimed Brawley was exposed while repairing…

  11. 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;…

  12. 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…

  13. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · February 21, 2017

    Fish v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (2017)

    The magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Ford Motor Company's motion for a protective order limiting the plaintiffs' 54 Rule 30(b)(6) areas of inquiry, largely for Ford, allowed the plaintiffs…

  14. Court case · U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · July 11, 2016

    Waite v. Aii Acquisition Corp. (2016)

    The court denied Ford's motion for summary judgment and its motion to exclude Plaintiffs' causation experts and historian, denied Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Ford's experts (while barring untimely expert analysis), and denied Plaintiffs' motion…

  15. Court case · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · March 19, 2018

    Gorton v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. (2018)

    …Nevada Bell and AT & T, Inc., found jurisdiction over Ford and AT & T Corp., but dismissed the claims against those two without prejudice as conclusory, allowing plaintiffs to amend. A foreign corporation registered in Pennsylvania consents…

  16. 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…

  17. 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 …

  18. Court case · New York Supreme Court · November 20, 2019

    Temperino v. Amchem Prods. (2019)

    …without prejudice to renewal at trial; Ford's motion was marked withdrawn. Conflicting expert reports on whether exposure caused lung cancer raise credibility issues that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. The court deferred ruling on…

  19. Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana · August 26, 2022 · in the opinion

    Becnel v. Lamorak Insurance Co. (2022)

    …exposed to asbestos from Ford vehicles, plaintiffs' claims stand. Accordingly, Ford's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. v. Navistar, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment Navistar, Inc. (f/k/a International Harvester Company) contends that…

  20. Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · August 31, 2017 · in the opinion

    Charlevoix v. Caterpillar (In re Asbestos Litigation, 2017)

    Charlevoix performed clutch and gasket work on Ford vehicles owned by family and friends. (D.I. 216, Ex. 3 at 152:16-19) However, Mr. Milligan could not recall the manufacturer of any clutches or gaskets…