Ford Motor Co. v. Boomer
Filed: January 10, 2013
State: Virginia
Court: Supreme Court
Case Number: 120283
James Lokey passed away due to complications related to mesothelioma. Lokey had served as a state trooper, where his duties included observing vehicle inspections wherein mechanics used compressed air to blow out brake debris to allow for visual inspection of the brakes. Walter Boomer, the administrator of Lokey's estate, filed wrongful death actions against Honeywell International, Inc., the successor-in-interest to Bendix, and Ford Motor Company, alleging that Lokey's mesothelioma was…
Funkhouser v. Ford Motor Co.
Filed: January 10, 2013
State: Virginia
Court: Supreme Court
Case Number: 111207
Steven Funkhouser's three-year-old twins were playing in their parents' 2001 Ford Windstar when a fire erupted in the passenger compartment of the van. One of the twins died as a result of third-degree burns she received. Funkhouser, as administrator of his daughter's estate, brought a products liability action against For Motor Company and Obaugh Ford (collectively, Ford). Funkhouser sought to introduce evidence of seven other Ford Windstar fires that occurred prior to the Funkhouser…
FORD MOTOR COMPANY V DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Filed: January 8, 2013
State: Michigan
Court: Court of Appeals Unpublished
Case Number: 306820
THORNTON v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY
Filed: December 28, 2012
State: Oklahoma
Court: Court of Appeals - Civil
Citation: 2013 OK CIV APP 7
Case Number: 108089
Motelson v Ford Motor Co.
Filed: December 19, 2012
State: New York
Court: Appellate Division, Second Department
Citation: 2012 NY Slip Op 08702
Case Number: 2009-04215
Gartman v. Ford Motor Co.
Filed: December 12, 2012
State: Arkansas
Court: Court of Appeals
Citation: 2012 Ark. App. 693
Case Number: CA11-974
In re Ford Motor Company and Ken Stoepel Ford, Inc., Relator v. --Appeal from 408th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Filed: December 12, 2012
State: Texas
Court: Fourth Court of Appeals
Case Number: 04-12-00688-CV
In the Matter of the Estate of Brian Cole
Filed: December 6, 2012
State: Mississippi
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: 2011-IA-01103-SCT
In this interlocutory appeal, Ford Motor Company (Ford) wanted to preserve a confidential settlement agreement between it and the Estate and wrongful-death beneficiaries of Brian Cole (the Coles). The case on appeal was a separate action between the Coles, their attorneys, and among the attorneys themselves regarding expenses, a contingency-fee agreement, and a fee-sharing agreement. The chancellor denied Ford's motion and its "Notice of Intent to Seek Closure of Proceedings and Sealing…
IN RE FORD MOTOR COMPANY AND MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO MICHELIN AMERICAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION--Appeal from 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County
Filed: November 20, 2012
State: Texas
Court: Thirteenth Court of Appeals
Case Number: 13-12-00624-CV
Rooker v. Ford Motor Company
Filed: November 14, 2012
State: Florida
Court: Second District Court of Appeal
Case Number: 2D11-5168
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. DAVID HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Filed: November 9, 2012
State: Missouri
Court: Court of Appeals
Case Number: SD31568
Ford Motor Co. v. Florentino Garza d/b/a Tino's Auto Mart--Appeal from 79th Judicial District Court of Jim Wells County
Filed: October 31, 2012
State: Texas
Court: Fourth Court of Appeals
Case Number: 04-12-00473-CV
Earl Thomas Burgess v. Ford Motor Company
Filed: September 28, 2012
State: Tennessee
Court: Court of Appeals
Case Number: M2011-00654-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Ford Motor Co. v. Washington
Filed: September 27, 2012
State: Arkansas
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: 2012 Ark. 354
Case Number: 11-612
Appellant and Appellee jointly petitioned the Supreme Court for rehearing following the dismissal of Appellant's appeal without prejudice due to lack of a final order. In the dismissal, the Supreme Court denied Appellee's motion to nonsuit her claims against another defendant because no order dismissing the defendant from the case was entered. In their petition, Petitioners contended that, pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3, the order in the appeal was final because they abandoned any…
Ford Motor Co. v. Washington
Filed: September 13, 2012
State: Arkansas
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: 2012 Ark. 325
Case Number: 11-612
Defendant Ford Motor Company appealed from the judgment of the circuit court reflecting the jury's award of compensatory and punitive damages in favor of Plaintiff, individually and as administratrix of her husband's estate, and as parent and legal guardian of the couple's child. Plaintiff's action arose out of an automobile accident that killed her husband. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Ford, the manufacturer of the automobile the couple was driving, and Freeway Ford Lincoln…
Esmeralda Martinez v. Ford Motor Credit Company; Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC; Ford Motor Credit In Its Assumed or Common Name--Appeal from 285th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Filed: August 29, 2012
State: Texas
Court: Fourth Court of Appeals
Case Number: 04-11-00306-CV
TURNER, ET AL., V. FORD MOTOR
Filed: August 15, 2012
State: Florida
Court: Third District Court of Appeal
Case Number: 3D11-1377
Blumer v. Ford Motor Company and McCrackin Ford, Inc.
Filed: August 8, 2012
State: Pennsylvania
Court: Supreme Court
Case Number: 417 WAL 2011
MARK GODFREDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Filed: July 25, 2012
State: Iowa
Court: Court of Appeals
Case Number: 2-392/11-1754
FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC v. PATRICIA MENDOLA / v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC , RAY CATENA JAGUAR OF EDISON, and MODERN AUTO BODY OF SOUTH ORANGE, INC and MADISON JAGUAR, MAIN AUTO SALES INC., and BOB OROZCO 2012 —
Filed: July 24, 2012
State: New Jersey
Court: Appellate Division (Published)
Case Number: a4675-10
J.A.D. The precise and limited issue we decide is whether a claimant must present expert testimony to support her causes of action against several defendants in the automotive business for damages sustained when the engine of her leased automobile seized. Third-party plaintiff Patricia Mendola appeals from orders granting summary judgment to third-party defendants because she did not produce a report of an expert witness by the close of discovery. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
