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

FDA urges SCOTUS to reject review in ear candles case, says warning letters are not reviewable in court
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 27 2012

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the petition for review filed by the Holistic Candlers and Consumers Association and companies making ear candle products from a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling dismissing their challenge to FDA’s warning letters about their products


DRI national poll uncovers perceptions of flaws in U.S. civil justice system
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 27 2012

DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar recently issued a report titled “The DRI National Poll on the Civil Justice System,” in which it found, on the basis of a random sample of 1,020 U.S. adults, that a significant percentage (41) of respondents indicated that they were not confident that the civil law system produces just and fair results


Charles Silver, "Ethics and Innovation," George Washington Law Review (forthcoming 2011)
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • May 27 2010

University of Texas at Austin Law Professor Charles Silver has prepared an article that will appear in a symposium issue of the George Washington Law Review addressing various aspects of aggregate litigation


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


U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction over Italian gun maker; default judgment vacated
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 2 2010

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that U.S. courts lacked both general and specific jurisdiction over the Italian manufacturer of a .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol, thus affirming a district court order vacating an $11-million default judgment rendered in favor of the family of a man who died from injuries allegedly caused by the gun’s unexpected discharge