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

JPML consolidates toning shoe lawsuits
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • January 12 2012

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has issued an order transferring to the Western District of Kentucky 12 actions filed in nine federal district courts against the company that makes “Shape-Ups” toning shoes


U.S. Supreme Court to hear appeal in vaccine design defect case
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • March 18 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that vaccine defect claims were preempted by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act


FTC charges juice maker with deceptive advertising after juice maker charges FTC with exceeding authority in regulating health-related claims
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2010

Less than two weeks after POM Wonderful LLC filed a complaint against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging that new requirements imposed on food producers making health-related claims exceeded the agency's authority, FTC filed a complaint charging the pomegranate juice maker with "making false and unsubstantiated claims that their products will prevent or treat heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction."


Federal judge orders Chinese citizen’s spouse to produce documents and other discovery
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • January 12 2012

The husband of a woman killed in an airline crash in New York has been ordered to produce additional discoverable information, including materials located in China


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


Homeowners allege spray foam insulation endangers health
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

Pennsylvania residents have filed a putative class action against companies that made and installed spray foam insulation (SPF) in their homes, claiming that its application “causes property damage and health hazards to occupants of installed homes such that the only remedy is the complete removal of SPF.”


Alabama jury finds no seatbelt defect in accident ejection suit
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • November 29 2012

A state jury in Alabama has determined that a seatbelt manufacturer was not liable for the injuries sustained by a pregnant driver who was ejected from her minivan during an accident despite wearing a seatbelt


California High Court abandons common law release rule in MedMal suit
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • September 13 2012

The California Supreme Court has determined that settlement with one joint tortfeasor does not bar a plaintiff from recovering economic damages from a non-settling defendant; thus, the court abandoned the “common law release rule.”