|
[01/02] Chinese police detain tainted milk activist
[12/31] China dairy boss delayed reporting quality issues
[12/30] Families in China's milk scandal denounce payout
[12/30] Chinese dairies to compensate sickened babies
[12/24] Ho, ho, no: Toymakers say lead law harms workshops
More...
Articles
Medical Products & Devices
Medical appliances, equipment, and supplies include blood and blood products, anatomical gifts, prosthetic devices, surgical implants, surgical equipment, hospital furniture and supplies, diagnostic equipment and supplies, and hearing and visual aids. Any of these products can be the subject of a products liability law suit if it is defective and causes an injury. With regard to blood products, many states have enacted blood shield statutes that declare that providing blood is rendering a service rather than selling goods, and therefore not be the subject of a products liability suit.
More...
Know Your Cobra Rights
COBRA is a federal law, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Under COBRA, employees, their spouses, and their dependent children usually can't lose their employer health insurance coverage when a worker loses a job, dies, divorces, or experiences certain other life changes. Instead, these individuals may continue an employer-provided health plan for up to eighteen months, as long as they personally pay the premiums.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[01/05] Robinson v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Motorist's warranty claims were properly dismissed because the express and implied warranties do not cover tread wear of the original equipment tires on his minivan. The vehicle warranty expressly and repeatedly excludes tires from coverage, and the warranty from Michelin expires with the tread; because these are special "run-flat" tires, their merchantability cannot be determined by a comparison to standard passenger tires.
[12/30] In re: Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig.
District court's certification of a class of direct purchasers of hydrogen peroxide and two persalts is vacated and remanded. Class certification under Rule 23 requires: 1) findings by the court, not merely a "threshold showing" by a party, that each requirement of Rule 23 is met; 2) the court's resolution of all factual or legal disputes relevant to class certification, even if they overlap with the merits; and 3) the court's consideration of all relevant evidence and arguments, including expert testimony offered by any party.
[12/22] Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co.
In a class action alleging deceptive marketing of a food product for toddlers, dismissal of the suit is reversed where: 1) deficiencies in appellants' opening brief do not warrant dismissal since the claim has merit; 2) appellants have stated a claim and could plausibly prove that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the product's packaging; and 3) the district court erred in concluding, without considering any evidence beyond the packaging itself, that appellants' complaint failed to state a viable claim. (Amended opinion)
[12/16] Adamo v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
In arguing that cigarette companies negligently designed their products by failing to use lower levels of tar and nicotine, Appellants failed to prove the essential claim that regular cigarettes and "light" cigarettes have the same "utility." They did not prove, or even try to prove, that light cigarettes gratify smokers' desires for a certain experience as well as regular cigarettes.
[12/15] Altria Group, Inc. v. Good
In an action brought by smokers of "light" cigarettes manufactured by defendants claiming that defendants violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA), the Court rules that: 1) the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act does not preempt state-law claims like respondents' that were predicated on the duty not to deceive; and 2) the FTC's various decisions with respect to statements of tar and nicotine content do not impliedly preempt plaintiffs' claim.
More...
|
