Cases

OPINION JOHNSON, Judge. Latonya R. Hodge has petitioned for review of an opinion of the Workers’ Compensation Board entered on January 8, 2003, which reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s determination that Hodge had joined her March 8, 2000, injury claim “by implication” as a part of her December 9, 1998, injury claim. Having concluded that the ALJ properly considered evidence related to Hodge’s M

MarkmAN, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the majority’s analysis of the law in Part III of the opinion. However, I write separately because I do not believe the majority properly applies its own test in concluding that plaintiffs August 25, 2006 letter to the Department of Treasury satisfied the statutory requir

OWEN, Circuit Judge: In this diversity case, the plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to pursue damages arising from claims they released in settlement of a prior wrongful death suit because the settlement agreement was induced by fraud. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to rescind the settlement agreement and return the proceeds they had received und

ORDER Gary Millar worked as a security guard for Ford Motor Company until the automaker summarily terminated his employment on September 18, 1998. He appeals the district court’s grant of Ford’s motion *86for summary judgment on his claim of wrongful termination without cause, arguing that it failed to find a genuine issue of material fact regarding his status as an at-will empl

107 S.W.3d 168 (2003) FORD MOTOR COMPANY, North Point Ford, Inc. v. The Reverend Milton HARPER, Janice Harper, Upper Room Apostolic Church, and Leon Dulemer. No. 01-1286. Supreme Court of Arkansas. May 22, 2003. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, LLP, by Edwin L. Lowther, Jr., Troy A. Price and Jerry J. Sallings, Little Rock, for appellants. David A. Hodges; and

84 S.W.3d 198 (2002) Hanan BUTNARU and Gil Butnaru, Petitioners, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Respondent. No. 00-0513. Supreme Court of Texas. Argued February 14, 2001. Decided June 27, 2002. *200 Jonathan Scott Miles, Andrew L. Kerr, Holland & Knight LLP, San Antonio, Byron W. Hodge, Lowry Foster & Hodge, Del

Per Curiam. Appellant Ford Motor Company (Ford) moves this court to direct the Supreme Court Clerk to file a packet of documents under seal. The packet is presently retained by the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk in a sealed and certified envelope in the circuit clerk’s office but, apparently, was never placed in the circuit clerk’s file in this case prior to appeal. The appellees, the Reverend Milton Harper, J

95 S.W.3d 810 (2003) 351 Ark. 559 FORD MOTOR COMPANY and North Point Ford, Inc. v. Milton HARPER, et al. No. 01-1286. Supreme Court of Arkansas. January 27, 2003. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, by: Troy A. Price, Little Rock, for appellants. David A. Hodges, Little Rock, for appellees. PER CURIAM. This appeal arises from

45 P.3d 86 (2002) 2002 OK 24 Ricky JOHNSON, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant/Appellant. No. 95,873. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. April 2, 2002. James D. Sill, Mary A. Black, James C. Winterringer, Shawnee, OK, Richard L. Denney, Lydia J. Barrett, Norman, Oklahoma, Brent D. Berry, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff/Appellee.

514 F.3d 419 (2008) Barbara Haffey BOGY, Individually and As Mother and Next Friend of Thomas P. Haffey, a Minor; Mollie Haffey Caldwell; James L. Haffey, Jr., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Ford Motor Company, Defendant—Appellee. No. 06-60308. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. January 16, 2008. Pat M. Barrett, Jr.

OPINION WATT, Justice. Claimant, Rankin, suffered from cumulative trauma to his hands while working for respondent Ford Motor Company. The Workers’ Compensation Court, Honorable Kimberly E. West, trial judge, held that the date of RanMii’s injury for the purpose of determining Rankin’s wage rate was the date Rankin first became aware of his injury, in October 1986. The Court of Appeals, Division 1, reversed

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Kayla Nemmers filed a products liability action against Defendant Ford Motor Company, alleging that a lap-only seatbelt installed in the front-center seat of a 2002 Ford F-250 pickup failed to restrain her torso during an accident. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Ford. Nemmers appeals, arguing the district court

NO. 5-05-0723 NOTICE Decision filed 02/01/10. The text of IN THE this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS Peti tion for Rehearing or th e disposition of the same. FIFTH DISTRICT ____________________________________________________

196 Mich. App. 470 (1992) 493 N.W.2d 909 MANER v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY KANALOS v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION Docket Nos. 146999, 147000, 147001. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided October 20, 1992, at 9:30 A.M. Levine, Benjamin, Tushman, Bratt, Jerris & Stein, P.C. (by Charles P. Burbach), for Lawrence A. Maner.

398 F.Supp.2d 1365 (2005) In re FORD MOTOR CO. SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Michael T. Iley, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al., M.D. Florida, C.A. No. 8:05-1139 Robert Nicholas Dill, Sr., et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al., M.D. Florida, C.A. No. 8:05-1234 Joseph T. Whittington v. Ford Motor Co., E.D. Louisiana, C.A. No. 2:05-2469 Marcus Ebow v. Ford Motor Co., E.D. Michigan, C.A. No. 2:05-70781 Arlene

245 F.Supp.2d 1381 (2003) In re FORD MOTOR COMPANY/CITIBANK, N.A., CARDHOLDER REBATE PROGRAM LITIGATION Ricky A. Copeland v. Ford Motor Co., W.D. Washington, C.A. No. 2:98-817 (N.D.Alabama, C.A. No. 7:97-2666) John La Grou v. Ford Motor Co., W.D. Washington, C.A. No. 2:98-226 (C.D.California, C.A. No. 2:97-9198) John McCauley v. Ford Motor Co., et al., W.D. Washington, C.A. No. 2:98-151 (N.D.Illinois, C.A. No. 1:97-5627) Geral

ORDER DANIEL P. JORDAN III, District Judge. This products-liability case is before the Court on the following motions filed by Defendant Ford Motor Company: Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Mark Sutherland [85]; Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Stan Smith [86]; Motion for Summary Judgment [89]; and Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim [91]. As set forth below, the Motion to Exc

259 F.Supp.2d 1366 (2003) In re FORD MOTOR CO. CROWN VITORIA POLICE INTERCEPTOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGTION Ralph Jones v. Ford Motor Co., E.D. Arkansas, C.A. 5:02-320 Paul W. Abbott, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al., N.D. Florida, C.A. No. 3:02-345 Louisette M.F. Woodward v. Ford Motor Co., E.D. Texas, C.A. No. 9:02-288 No. 1488. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT JAMES LAWRENCE KING, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Amended Motion for Final Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (DE 190), filed March 7, 2014. The Court has been fully briefed on the matter.1 For the reasons cited herein, the Court finds that De

CARLTON, J„ for the Court: 111. Kelly Grant, individually and as the personal representative of Makayla Mag-gard’s estate and the heirs-at-law and wrongful-death beneficiaries of Maggard, appeals the Clarke County Circuit Court’s grant, of summary judgment in favor of Ford Motor Company (Ford). Grant raises the following assignments of error: whether the trial court erred by (1) failing to compel Ford to produc