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 16

Attorneys found guilty of fraud in asbestos settlement case

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 18 2010

A federal jury in Natchez, Mississippi, has reportedly ruled that two attorneys will have to pay back $210,000 in settlement funds paid to their clients and $210,000 in punitive damages for alleged fraudulent claims they filed in an asbestos case that settled in 2002

Beryllium exposure not suitable for medical monitoring under Pennsylvania law

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 24 2010

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that nearby residents and workers at Pennsylvania factories that allegedly exposed them to beryllium cannot seek medical monitoring

Ohio Supreme Court limits premises owner’s liability in asbestos exposure case

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 24 2010

The Ohio Supreme Court has determined that, under a state law applicable to all tort actions for asbestos claims brought against a premises owner, the wife of a pipefitter who brought asbestos dust on his clothes into the home for 10 years cannot sue the owner of the property where the pipefitter worked

California jury awards millions for secondhand exposure to asbestos

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 13 2010

A California state jury has reportedly awarded compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $200 million to Bobby and Rhoda Evans for the mesothelioma that Rhoda allegedly contracted from washing her husband's work clothes; he was allegedly exposed to asbestos on the job for some 24 years

Secondhand asbestos exposure verdict survives appeal

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 16 2010

A New Jersey appellate court has upheld a $7 million jury award to a woman who allegedly developed mesothelioma, in part, from exposure to the asbestos on her husband's clothing, which she purportedly shook out before laundering

Ninth Circuit adopts criteria for granting discretionary review under CAFA

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 9 2010

In the context of an employment law dispute, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has established the criteria it will consider in determining whether to grant an appeal of an order remanding a putative class action to state court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA

Plausibility pleading standard shunned in Tennessee

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 28 2011

Invited to adopt the U.S. Supreme Court’s new plausibility pleading standard in an employment law dispute, the Tennessee Supreme Court has declined to do so, citing the state’s long-standing adherence to the more liberal “notice” pleading standard previously applied in the federal courts

Illinois Supreme Court allows further development of secondhand asbestos injury theory

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 5 2012

A divided Illinois Supreme Court has decided that a plaintiff has insufficiently pleaded that an employer owed a duty of care to a woman who died from mesothelioma after purportedly being exposed to asbestos on her husband’s clothing from 1958 to 1964

Illinois courts to stop reserving asbestos trial dates for cases not yet filed

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 5 2012

According to a news source, Madison County, Illinois, Associate Judge Clarence Harrison has decided that trial dates will no longer be reserved for asbestos cases that have not yet been filed

Strict product liability alleged in meat grinder-related mortality

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 8 2012

The family of a man allegedly killed while he was cleaning and maintaining a meat grinder in his place of employment has sued the equipment’s manufacturer, claiming that it was unsafe because it lacked a warning signal to signify that “it was powered on and about to start operating” as well as an emergency stop device