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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 361

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


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.”


Court allows plaintiffs in tire defect suit to inspect manufacturing facility
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

A federal court in New York has determined that plaintiffs in two separate cases allegedly injured when the rear tires on their motorcycles suddenly deflated during operation may inspect the defendant’s manufacturing facility and that the inspection will not be precluded by or subject to a protective order


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