Cases

2009 OK 24 BRAULIO M. CUESTA and ERIC L. GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY and WILLIAMS CONTROLS, INC., Defendants/Appellants. No. 104480, Consol. w/104485. Supreme Court of Oklahoma. April 21, 2009. Michael Burrage, Durant, Oklahoma, John E. Dowdell, William W. O'Connor, Tulsa, Oklahoma,

664 F.Supp.2d 752 (2009) In re FORD MOTOR CO. SPEED COTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGTION. MDL No. 1718. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. September 29, 2009. Order on Clarification and Reconsideration January 4, 2010. *754 Michael A. Caddell, Caddell & Chapman, Houston

662 F.3d 931 (2011) Monica Del Carmen GONZALEZ-SERVIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Products Liability Litigation. Yehuda Kerman, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Bayer Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 11-1665, 08-2792. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

FLIER, J., Concurring.—Although I find procedural and substantive deficiencies in Ford Motor Company’s (Ford’s) add-on petition, I concur in the result. Because the coordinated proceeding was stayed shortly after the original coordination order and remains stayed, the “ ‘relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel’ ” should have been the primary consideration in evaluating Ford’s add-on petition (as the

Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to the Illinois Official Reports accuracy and integrity of this

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DENNIS O’CONNOR and ANDREW NAGY and FOR PUBLICATION All Others Similarly Situated, March 2, 2023

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. *541 Harris & Bu

Filed 4/21/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE PETER REYNOLDS, Plaintiff and Respondent, A154811 v. (Sonoma County FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Super. Ct. No. SCV254959) Defendant and Appellant. Def

663 A.2d 30 (1995) FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO. v. Jerome and Claudette MOORE v. Thomas O'CONNOR, et al.[1] Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Argued March 14, 1995. Decided July 31, 1995. *31 Rita M. Farry (orally), Greenberg & Greenberg, Portland, for plaintiff. Ralph A. Dyer (orally), Law Offices of Ralph

OPINION AND ORDER GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff Erin O’Connor brings this action against Defendant Nationwide Children’s Hospital alleging four claims: 1) wrongful termination; 2) violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”); 3) a battery claim; and 4) a products liability claim. This matter is before the Court on Defen

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00528-CV IN RE John EBIN and Joyce O’Connor Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C.

HOWARD F. SACHS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *715This disability discrimination claim has very unusual features. It will be ruled in favor of defendant, Ford Motor Co., on a quite unappealing theory, required in my view by controlling case-law. It does, however, seem very debatable on the ultimate merits, if we were to get past the current iss

William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge Plaintiffs Dean and Margaret Thomas brought this suit advancing claims of negligence and strict liability against defendant Ford Motor Company. The Thomases have named Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corporation (WPS) as an involuntary plaintiff in this action to resolve any subrogation interest it might have in the proceeds. Ford has filed motions to dismiss against both the Thomases and WP

WILLOCKS, Administrative Judge *37MEMORANDUM OPINION (March 18, 2016) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Ford Motor Company and Metro Motors’ (hereinafter, “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment filed on October 31, 2014. On February 18, 2015, the Court entered an Order sua sponte and granted the parties

403 Mass. 240 (1988) 526 N.E.2d 1284 FORD MOTOR COMPANY vs. LOREN M. BARRETT. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex. March 10, 1988. August 17, 1988. Present: HENNESSEY, C.J., WILKINS, LIACOS, ABRAMS, NOLAN, LYNCH, & O'CONNOR, JJ. Brian A. Davis (Thayer Fremont-Smith with him) for the plaintiff.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

404 Mass. 537 (1989) 536 N.E.2d 587 FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY vs. ROSE A. MORGAN & another.[1] Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk. November 10, 1988. April 10, 1989. Present: HENNESSEY, C.J., LIACOS, ABRAMS, NOLAN, & O'CONNOR, JJ. *538 Robert L. Hernandez for

Opinion WOODS, J. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, a California resident (since 1956) who had lived in New Jersey until 1951, filed a premises liability action against Ford Motor Company, alleging she had been diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of her exposure to asbestos from laundering her father’s and brother’s asbestos-covered clothing during the time they worked with asbestos as

666 F.Supp.2d 154 (2009) GLENWOOD FARMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Cozen O'CONNOR, et al., Defendants. No. 09-cv-205-P-S. United States District Court, D. Maine. October 14, 2009. *157 Andrew D. Berman, Simonds Winslow Willis & Abbott Boston, MA, Glenn D. Goodman, Law Offices of Glenn D. Goodman, Springfield, MA, William P. Logan,

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 137 Ohio St.3d 373, 2013-Ohio-4733, 999 N.E.2d 614. The cause is remanded to the appellate court for further proceedings. O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, and French, JJ., concur. Pfeifer and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.