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 360

Eighth Circuit dismisses action against insurer; no duty to defend actionable camouflage apparel odor-performance representations

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

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurance company which sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify a camouflage clothing manufacturer that was sued for misrepresenting the odor-eliminating performance of its products

Consumer fraud claims filed against baby crib bumper manufacturer

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

A woman who purchased baby crib bumpers has filed a putative class action in a California federal court alleging violations of consumer-fraud laws and claiming that the company falsely advertises the products as safe when properly installed, despite risks of injury and death posed by these products

Eleventh Circuit allows scalp burn claims to proceed against hair dye maker

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

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a lower court erred in excluding non-hearsay statements about a hair dye product in a personal injury lawsuit

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

Commission abandons appeal in challenge to unsafe product database

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

According to a news source, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has discontinued its Fourth Circuit appeal from a Maryland federal court’s ruling that a product safety complaint was too misleading to post on the commission’s Saferproducts

Putative class alleges fraud in mascara marketing claims

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

A California resident has filed a putative class action against Coty Inc., alleging that it falsely advertises one of its cosmetic products, Rimmel London Lash Accelerator Mascara with Grow-Lash Complex, as a product that can lengthen and thicken eyelashes in just 30 days

Negligent misrepresentation suit against paint company tossed

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

A federal court in Missouri has dismissed, under the economic loss doctrine, a negligent misrepresentation claim against a paint manufacturer involving a purportedly defective product and alleging economic loss only

Pennsylvania Supreme Court requires products defendant to plead and prove highly reckless conduct as affirmative defense

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 29 2012

In a matter of first impression, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court has determined that a products liability defendant must plead and prove as an affirmative defense that an injured plaintiff’s alleged “highly reckless conduct” was the sole or superseding cause of her injuries

Fifth Circuit rules AG action over LCD panels is removable to federal court

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 29 2012

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a Mississippi attorney general (AG) antitrust action against companies that sell liquid crystal display (LCD) panels may be removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), because the suit fulfills the law’s requirements as a “mass action.”

Ninth Circuit reverses asbestos judgment; district court failed to conduct Daubert hearing

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 29 2012

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a Daubert hearing when asked to reconsider the credentials of plaintiffs’ expert witness and thus reversed a $9.37-million jury award for injury allegedly caused by occupational exposure to asbestos