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 362

Fourth Circuit rules torture victims law inapplicable to corporation making mustard gas chemical used in Iraq
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 29 2011

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that Kurdish plaintiffs may not sue the company that makes a chemical used in mustard gas under either the Torture Victim Protection Act or the Alien Tort Statute (ATS


New York adopts law allowing legal fee awards to any person benefiting a class
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 29 2011

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) has reportedly signed a law (S. 4577) that will allow courts to award attorney’s fees in class actions to those acting to benefit the class, such as settlement objectors


Firing rifle without bolt-assembly pin ruled not a reasonably anticipated use
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 26 2011

A divided Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel has determined under Louisiana products liability law that a rifle manufacturer could not have reasonably anticipated that someone would fire its rifle when it was missing a bolt-assembly pin


Insufficient evidence of lost profits shown in law firm’s dispute with ediscovery vendor
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • November 8 2012

A Texas appeals court has determined that a law firm failed to substantiate its claim for damages in a breach of contract counterclaim against a vendor hired to provide litigation support services involving electronic discovery


Ninth Circuit reverses denial of class certification in vehicle defect cases
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 2 2010

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that common issues of law predominate in two putative class actions alleging a steering alignment defect in Land Rover LR3 vehicles, which defect purportedly manifested in uneven and premature tire wear


South Carolina adopts risk-utility standard for design defect claims
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 2 2010

The South Carolina Supreme Court has decided to adopt a risk-utility test for plaintiffs bringing design defect claims and will require a showing of a reasonable alternative design to hold a manufacturer strictly liable for harm caused by the alleged defective design


Court rules CAFA does not allow added counterclaim defendant to remove action
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2011

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a party joined to an action as a counterclaim defendant may not remove the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA


Mississippi Supreme Court allows plaintiff to prove she was common-law wife in silicosis litigation
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2011

Reconsidering a matter that divided the court in 2010, the Mississippi Supreme Court has reversed itself and will allow some claims to proceed in wrongful-death litigation involving silica exposure filed by the decedent's purported common-law wife


Eighth Circuit dismisses preempted claims of inadequate labeling for contact cement
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2011

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a lower court correctly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the claims filed by survivors of a man killed when a contact-cement spill ignited as he tried to clean it up would have imposed label warnings not required under federal law


“Date of initial purchase” clarified in death case involving log-stacking equipment
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 12 2011

Dismissing wrongful death claims arising out of an accident involving a log-stacking machine, the Arkansas Supreme Court has determined that the applicable statutes of repose barred the action because it was brought more than six years after the equipment was initially started up and placed into use