We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 1,081

Personal injury suit claims 3-year-old swallowed Buckyballs magnets

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 20 2014

The parents of a 3-year-old girl who was allegedly hospitalized after swallowing 37 high-power magnets from a "Buckyballs" adult desktop toy set

CAFA pleading issue argued before SCOTUS

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 23 2014

The U.S. Supreme Court has heard argument in a class action alleging that Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. failed to pay royalties to owners of

Virginia Supreme Court issues ruling on cause of action accrual in asbestos case

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 17 2013

A divided Virginia Supreme Court, answering a question certified to it by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, has determined that a plaintiff's cause

Expert evidence improperly excluded in bedbug infestation case

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 20 2011

The First Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial in a case against a discount furniture retailer, finding that the trial court erred in excluding the causation testimony of the exterminator whom the plaintiffs consulted when they discovered a bedbug infestation in their home

Environmental group calls on FDA to ban sunscreen ingredient

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 14 2013

Citing test results from Australia's National Measurement Institute (NMI), environmental advocacy group Friends of the Earth (FOE) has called on the

CPSC commissioners disagree about cost-benefit analysis

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 18 2013

According to a news source, at a recent Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) hearing to discuss the agency's priorities and strategies for

Rule 23(b)(2) class may be certified where monetary damages are incidental

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 13 2012

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that, consistent with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), a class in which monetary as well as declaratory or injunctive relief is sought may be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) as long as the monetary relief is incidental

Ninth Circuit splits over interplay of standing and forum non conveniens

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 14 2012

In response to a petition for rehearing en banc before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a dispute over the adequacy of Peru as an alternative forum in a case involving claims by indigenous people that a U.S. oil company discharged pollutants into the waterways they used for drinking, fishing and bathing, dissenting and concurring opinions reveal a split on whether the court had jurisdiction to decide the forum non conveniens question if one of the plaintiffs, the only domestic plaintiff, lacked standing

Obesity lawsuit against McDonald’s concludes

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 3 2011

The parties in obesity-related litigation, brought on behalf of several teenagers against fast-food giant McDonald's Corp. in 2002, have filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice

Hong Kong manufacturer fails to stay coffee-maker defect proceedings

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 29 2011

A federal court in Ohio has refused to stay proceedings against the Hong Kong-based manufacturer of a coffee-maker that allegedly caused a house fire in 2009, ruling that the company’s filing of an appeal from the court’s denial in part of its motion to dismiss did not divest the court of jurisdiction and that the company failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant interlocutory appeal and thus warrant a permissive stay of the proceedings