Cases

25 A.3d 110 (2011) 420 Md. 649 FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, LLC v. Maureen P. ROBERSON. Misc. No. 15, September Term, 2010. Court of Appeals of Maryland. July 15, 2011. Daniel C. Fleming (Wong Fleming, Princeton, New Jersey), on brief, for Appellant. Scott C. Borison (Legg Law Firm, LLC, Frederick, MD), on brief, for Appellee. Bre

PER CURIAM: Concluding that this appeal presented an important issue of Alabama law which we believed to be appropriate for resolution by the Supreme Court of Alabama, we certified this case to that distinguished Court and the Honorable Justices thereof. Hale v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 581 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1978). The facts are set forth in our previously p

PER CURIAM: We have concluded that this appeal presents an important issue of Alabama law which we believe is appropriate for resolution by the Supreme Court of Alabama. Our decision in this matter will therefore be deferred pending certification of the issue to the Supreme Court of Alabama. We have requeste

503 S.W.2d 853 (1973) FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Appellant, v. Don COLE, Appellee. No. 17460. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth. December 28, 1973. Rehearing Denied January 25, 1974. *854 Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, and Thomas P. Goranson, Dallas, for appellant. Coleman, Whitten &

705 So.2d 1283 (1998) FORD MOTOR CREDIT, Plaintiff, v. Don LAING, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee. No. 30160-CA. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. January 21, 1998. *1284 Travis M. Holley & Associates by Travis M. Holley, Bastrop, for Third Party Defendant-Appellant Bastrop Ford Lincoln-Mercury. Sc

PER CURIAM: The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the presence of an acceleration clause in a contract under the Georgia Mo *246 tor Vehicle Sales Finance Act 1 constitutes a delin

566 F.Supp. 558 (1983) James Bennett COLE, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Ford Motor Credit Company, Jim Cole Ford, Inc., John D. Brown, John F. Mallon and D.M. Coleman, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 81-1760. United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania. June 10, 1983. *559 *560

303 B.R. 357 (2003) In re Mary WILL, Debtor. Mary Will, Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Credit Company, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 02 B 36426. Adversary No. 03 A 00646. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. November 20, 2003. *358 *359 *360

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-14-00811-CV Randy COLEMAN and Jim Coleman Company, Appellants v. Ralph DEAN,

ACCEPTED 04-14-00811-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

OPINION McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to reasonably accommodate their disabled employees; it does not endow all disabled persons with a job — or job schedule — of their choosing. Jane Harris, a Ford Motor Company employee with irritable bowel syndrome, sought a job schedule of her choosing: to work from home on an as-needed basis, up to fou

[J-12-2016] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT SAYLOR, C.J., BAER, TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, JJ. RICHARD M. ROST, EXECUTOR OF : No. 56 EAP 2014 THE ESTATE OF RICHARD J. ROST & : ERIN SIPLEY, EXECUTRIX OF THE : Appeal from the Judgment of Superior ESTATE OF JOYCE ROST, : Court entered on May 19, 2014 at No.

Filed 1/5/24 (review denied 5/1/24; reposted with Supreme Court order and statement) CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A165198 v. DEMETRIUS COLEMAN, (Humboldt County Defendant and Appellant.

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The majority holds that a telecommuting arrangement allowing an employee to telecommute four out of five days of the workweek on a spur-of-the-moment, unpredict*650able basis is a reasonable accommodation under the ADA for a position that involves routine face-to-face interactions. The stated law of this circuit, how

Filed 1/5/24 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A165198 v. DEMETRIUS COLEMAN, (Humboldt County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CR2000055B) When a criminal defendant voluntarily takes the stand, h

PER CURIAM: The Petition for Rehearing is denied and the Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Reh

37 Cal.Rptr.3d 283 (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 137 Greg JOHNSON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Nos. F040188, F040529. Court of Appeal, Fifth District. December 23, 2005. *285 McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, D. Greg Durbin, Fresno; Gibson, D

PER CURIAM: Ford Motor Credit Company (FMCC) appeals from a summary judgment forfeiting title and possession of a 1969 Plymouth Fury automobile to the United States. The record owner was charged and convicted of using the automobile for the unlawful transportation of counterfeit federal reserve notes. 49 U.S.C. §§ 781, 782. The ow

DECISION AND ORDER ADELMAN, District Judge. Plaintiff Penelope Clarke, in her capacity as the personal representative of her deceased father, Howard Pickard (“Pickard”), a former employee of defendant Ford Motor Company and a participant in defendant Ford General Retirement Plan, brings this putative class action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et

688 F.Supp. 435 (1988) FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Stanley J. GARNER and Virginia M. Garner, Defendants. Civ. No. F 87-248. United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. June 3, 1988. *436 Thomas W. Yoder, Livingston, Dildine, Haynie & Yoder, Fort Wayne, Ind., for plaintiff. Jay H. Ham,