Cases

718 F.Supp.2d 639 (2010) Roger J. TRAVERSA, Plaintiff v. Henry B. FORD, et al., Defendants. Civil No. L-10-442. United States District Court, D. Maryland. June 17, 2010. *642 Roger J. Traversa, Harwinton, CT, pro se. Sarah W. Rice, Maryland Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants. MEMO

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

335 Md. 525 (1994) 644 A.2d 522 ELIZABETH L. WOLF v. HARRY M. FORD, JR. ET AL. No. 104, September Term, 1993. Court of Appeals of Maryland. July 18, 1994. Frank E. Trock (Charles B. Zuravin, Charles B. Zuravin, P.A., all on brief), Columbia, for appellant. Andrew J. Bowden (Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc., all on brief), Stuart R. Berger

07/21/2020 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 25, 2020 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. GARY WAYNE FORD Appeal from the Criminal Court for Meigs County No. 2015-CR-53 Jeffery Hill Wicks, Judge No. E2019-00684-CCA-R3-CD The defendant

Moss, Justice. Barbara D. Ford, the respondent herein, and Herman A. Ford, the appellant herein, were married on March 16, 1952, in Richmond, Virginia. Three children were born of this marriage and they were at the time of the institution of this action seven, five and three years of age, respectively. The respondent did, on August 10, 1960, commence this action in the Greenville County Juvenile and Domestic

OPINION FRANKS, Judge. Ford Motor Credit Company appeals judgments by jury verdicts aggregating $6,000.00 compensatory damages and $3,000.00 punitive damages in favor of T. J. and Katherine Nelson, debtors of defendant, based on the tort of outrageous conduct. Defendant insists it was entitled to directed verdicts in its favor. In considering this issue, we are requ

PER CURIAM. This case presents several questions about the construction of the Truth-In-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq. (TILA), and Regulation Z, promulgated thereunder by the Federal Reserve Board at 12 C.F.R. § 226.1 et seq. The District Court adopted the conclusion of a special maste

594 S.W.2d 691 (1980) Mrs. Clifford BROYLES, Appellee, v. FORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. Supreme Court of Tennessee. February 25, 1980. *692 Frank L. Slaughter, Slaughter, Jackson, Cooper & Watson, Bristol, for appellant. George F. Legg, Stone & Hinds, Knoxville, Shelton B. Hillman, Jr., Gore & Hillman, Bristol, for ap

OPINION SANDERS, Judge. The sole question for determination on this appeal is proper venue in a transitory action. The Plaintiffs-Appellants, T. J. Nelson and wife, Katherine Nelson, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Roane County against the Defendant-Appellee, Ford Motor Credit Company. The suit is premised on tortious actions of the Defendant constituting “outrageous” conduct. The Plain

MEMORANDUM ROBERT L. TAYLOR, District Judge. The complaint in this case lists a number of causes of action against defendants based upon various federal and state laws. This Court’s jurisdiction over the state law claims is based solely on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. During the pre-trial conference the Court became aware of a serious question as to whether diversity jurisdiction

51 B.R. 444 (1985) In re Morgan Walker LEGG, Sr. (Deceased), Debtor. Cynthia D. KINSER, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. BOB MULLINS FORD, INC., Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 7-81-01274, Adv. No. 7-83-0190. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Virginia, Big Stone Gap Division. July 26, 1985. James E. Nunley, Bristol, Va., and Hugh P. Cline, Norton, Va., for debtor. Cynth

[1] Appellant, Teleco, Inc., brought an action seeking money damages against several defendants, including Ford Industries, Inc., the manufacturer of telephone answering devices known as "Code-A-Phones", alleging violations of Oklahoma antitrust statutes, found at 79 O.S. 1971 §§ 1[79-1], et seq. [2] In its petition, Teleco alleged five separate causes of action. Upon the basis of depositions, answers to interrogatories, and other evidence sub

478 S.W.2d 248 (1972) Buford B. LANKFORD, Jr., Appellant, v. ROGERS FORD SALES and Ford Motor Company, Appellees. No. 6235. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, El Paso. March 8, 1972. Rehearing Denied April 5, 1972. *249 Kerr, Fitz-Gerald & Kerr, Ted M. Kerr, Midland, for appellant. Stubbeman, McRae, Seal

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 536 On October 13, 1959, plaintiff filed her third amended complaint for "Fraud, Conspiracy, Perjury, Violations of Statutes, Injury and Damages." Named as defendants are John Ford, Harold J. Ostly, Laura Breska, Harold W. Kennedy, County of Los Angeles Department of Charities, County of Los Angeles, a corporati

723 A.2d 502 (1999) 124 Md. App. 560 James Henry McGRAW v. LOYOLA FORD, INC. No. 505, Sept. Term, 1998. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. January 28, 1999. *504 David Albright (Daniel T. Corrigan and Albright, Brown & Goertemiller on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant. Kimberly Dunn Spelma

233 S.C. 304 (1958) 104 S.E.2d 378 Svilla WILLIAMS and W.R. BURGESS, Administrators of the Estate of Miller Williams, Appellants, v. Carl J. FORD et al., Respondents. 17455 Supreme Court of South Carolina. July 20, 1958. *305 James Hugh McFaddin, Esq., of Manning, for Appellants. Me

Oxner and Legge, Justices (concurring in result). In our opinion, the record reveals no injuries for which damages may be recovered. Cp. Bosley v. Andrews, 393 Pa. 161, 142 A. (2d) 263; Reed v. Moore, 156 Cal. App. (2d) 43, 319 P. (2d) 80. But the question is not raised by any exceptions. Accordingly, we concur in the result.

230 S.C. 320 (1956) 95 S.E.2d 601 HARLEY ODOM, Respondent, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant. 17233 Supreme Court of South Carolina. December 11, 1956. Melvin Hyman, Esq., of Darlington, for Appellant. *322 Messrs. John P. Gardner and Robert L. Kilgo, of Darlington, for

572 F.Supp. 1201 (1983) Robert GNIRK, Special Administrator of the Estate of Beau Gnirk, Deceased, and Wilma Gnirk, Plaintiffs, v. The FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. Civ. No. 81-3067. United States District Court, D. South Dakota, C.D. October 14, 1983. Lee A. Tappe, Platte, S.D., and Charles Rick Johnson, Johnson, Eklund & Davis, Gregory, S.D., for plaintiffs.<

Per curiam. This appeal contests the validity of a covenant not to *712compete. Appellant was employed in July, 1974, by oral agreement as a salesman for Royal Ford, Inc., a Ford automobile dealership. Royal Ford, Inc., acted through Richard Royal, its President and sole stockholder. Royal agreed he would at a future time sell appellant some stock in th