Cases

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Robert T. Mills, Judge. Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and PITTMAN and BLASS, JJ. AFFIRMED.

139 Mich. App. 177 (1984) 362 N.W.2d 240 THOMPSON v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY Docket No. 70288. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided November 19, 1984. Kelman, Loria, Downing, Schneider & Simpson (by Rodger G. Will), for plaintiff. Office of The General Counsel (by David L. Kaminski), and Conklin, Benham, McLeod, Du

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Ford Motor Credit Company *Page 287 in Thompson's suit for conversion. We affirm. The facts of this case are stated in Thompson's brief as follows: "On or about September 25, 1979, the Appellant, Donald Eugene Thompson, purchased a 1978 Mercury Grand Marquis automobile from Gateway Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. of Sheffield, Alabama. Mr. Thompson paid $606.00 as a down paymen

JONES, JUDGE: Paula P. Ford ("Paula") appeals from several orders of the Mason Circuit Court rendered in connection with the dissolution of her marriage to John S. Ford III ("John"). Paula asserts the trial court erred when it refused to set aside a separation agreement she negotiated with John during a court-ordered mediation, ordered the separation agreement incorporated into the parties' dissolution decree even though it was unco

324 F.Supp. 108 (1971) Owen C. THOMPSON, Jr., Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 70-694. United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenwood Division. March 10, 1971. *109 W. Ray Berry, of Fulmer, Berry & Alford, Columbia, S. C., and J. Roy Berry, Johnston, S. C., for plaintiff. J. M

16 F.3d 1215 Fordv.Thompson* NO. 92-07746 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Feb 14, 1994 1 Appeal From: N.D.Miss. 2

HENRIOD, Chief Justice (concurring in the result). I concur in the result for reasons other than those stated in the main opinion. In our former case we said there could be no review where the depositions were unpublished, and suggested that if the facts assumed in the previous case were supported by the depositions, when and if opened, the case would be one for the jury. Knifing the manila f

Terry Lynn Ford ("the father") and Tobatha Gupton Ford ("the mother") were married in November 1984. In September 2006, after nearly 22 years of marriage, the parties separated. The mother filed for a divorce. After a short trial, the trial court entered a judgment on April 16, 2007, divorcing the parties. The judgment awarded the parties joint custody of their children, ordered no child support be paid by either party, and awarded the mother her retirement account; the marital reside

Stewart, J. The question before us is free of complications. It was apparently the view of the trial court that because the only specifications of negligence alleged by plaintiff in her amended petition relate to the failure of defendant to have lights upon his parked automobile, and there was no claim as to any other negligence concerning the manner in which or the location where the automobile was parked, t

Judgment rendered April 10, 2024. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 55,475-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA ***** SAMMY C.

OPINION OF THE COURT Andrew Borrok, J. The defendant has moved to dismiss the pending charges arguing that she has been denied her right to a speedy trial pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §§ 30.30 (1) (b) and 170.30 (1) (e) because, she alleges, 135 days have elapsed that are chargeable as nonexcludable time pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (b). Essentially, the principal issue before the court is whether a su

14 Utah 2d 334 (1963) 384 P.2d 109 HARVEY THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. No. 9807. Supreme Court of Utah. August 13, 1963. Barton & Klemm, Salt Lake City, for appellant. Christensen & Jensen, Salt Lake City, for respondent. CALLISTER, Justice. Personal injury ac

AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge: This Alabama diversity ease arose when appellee Mary J. Thompson defaulted on her automobile installment contract and appellant Ford Motor Credit Company repossessed the automobile. Mrs. Thompson sued Ford for conversion and, in the alternative, for trespass to chattels. The jury awarded Mrs. Thompson $5,000

*98 MASTROIANNI, District Judge. James F. Ford, with assistance from his wife Darlene and his sons Paul and Jim, 1 directed a marijuana-growing operation out of a home in Monroe, Maine. Acting on a tip from Jim’s girlfriend, police executed a sear

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS, AT AUSTIN NO. 3-94-427-CR EUGENE FORD THOMPSON, APPELLANT vs.

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. The four members of the Ford family ran an illicit, indoor marijuana farm, for which they have all been sentenced to prison. This appeal by Darlene Ford primarily concerns not the marijuana, but rather Darlene’s semi-automatic rifle, which she allowed her husband, James F. Ford, to use for target practice. James’.s possession of a firearm was a crime because

MEMORANDUM EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION... 515 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY... 515 A. The Electronic Throttle Body... 515 B. Schmidt v. Ford Motor Company... 516 C. Gill v. Ford Motor Company... 516 D. Consolidation... 517

PER CURIAM. In this design-defect case, the plaintiff sought to expose potential bias of the defendant’s two testifying experts by inquiring at their depositions into the frequency with which they testified in favor of design-defect defendants. To further explore bias, the plaintiff now seeks to depose a corporate representative of each expert’s employer. We hold that on the fac

On Application for Rehearing BRYAN, Judge. At trial, the parties referred to a judgment the Perry Circuit Court had entered in 1996 in a civil action docketed by that court as Eugene Darden v. Eva Smith Edwards, CV-95-15 (“the Darden case”). The judgment entered in the Darden case (“the Darden judgment”) had determined the location of a segment of the section line that was different f

Rule Made Absolute CHIEF JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court. 1 We issued a rule to show cause in this case to review the trial court's conclusion that defendant Ford Motor Company ("Ford") is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Colorado, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Daimler A.G. v. Bauman, — U.S.