63 results for “Ford Motor Company”, page 1 of 4
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, District of Utah · February 28, 2014
Anderson v. Ford Motor Company (2014)
Joseph Anderson Jr. sued in state court, and the case was removed to federal court in Utah. He alleged asbestos-caused mesothelioma and died of it in 2008. His wife Arva Anderson, as executor, took over as plaintiff. After the case returned from the…
-
Court case · Virginia Supreme Court · January 10, 2013
Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer (2013)
The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the jury verdict and judgment for the estate against Ford and Honeywell (Bendix) because of the "substantial contributing factor" jury instructions, and remanded for further proceedings under a multiple-sufficient…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · November 8, 2010
Reaser v. AW Chesterton Company (2010)
Robert Reaser served in the Navy from 1951 to 1971, working as a pipefitter and welder on Navy vessels, including time in San Diego and Long Beach. He later lived in Florida and worked in construction and on automobiles. He was diagnosed with…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · California Court of Appeal · July 25, 2014 · in the opinion
Lovelace v. Pneumo Abex LLC (2014)
Ford Motor Company During Trial Abex contends the judgment must be reversed "based on the \[trial\] court's prejudicial decision to apply Campbell mid-trial." Abex characterizes "the publication of Campbell" as "\[a\]n unexpected event…
-
Court case · U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · January 14, 1987 · in the opinion
Marshall v. Celotex Corp. (1987)
…defendants should be \jointly and severally' liable." (Plaintiff's Complaint at pp. 7-8). A case decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals subsequent to Abel is Cousineau v. Ford Motor Company, 140 Mich.App. 19…
-
Court case · Missouri Court of Appeals · February 2, 1993 · in the opinion
Harashe v. Flintkote Co. (1993)
…Ackerman v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Company, 368 S.W.2d 469 (Mo.1963) \[4,5\]. W.R. Grace has successor liability for the liabilities of Zonolite. See, id.; Ernst v. Ford Motor Company, 813 S.W…
-
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…
-
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…
-
Court case · New Jersey Supreme Court · November 19, 2019 · in the opinion
Whelan v. Armstrong International Inc. (2019)
…mentioning. The product manufacturer (1) "has the knowledge and ability to warn of the dangers of the joint use of the products, especially if the other company's product is a \wear item,'" id. at 472…
-
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…
-
Court case · Delaware Superior Court · September 28, 2020 · in the opinion
Gibbs v. 84 Lumber Company (2020)
…238, 242 (4th Cir. 1971) (finding that the duty-to-warn arises when the user may not realize the potential danger of a product))); see Watson v. Ford Motor Co., 389 S.C. 434, 444, 699…