skip navigation


Search the opinions of the US Circuit Courts of Appeal

Search for:
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"
This collection has many hidden limitations. To find out what you're really searching, see the disclaimer .

Your query products and liability returned 3367 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Argued for plaintiff appellant.   With him on the brief were John F. Argued for defendant appellee.  With him on the brief were Andra Barmash Greene. Communications Industry Association.  With him on the brief was Matthew Schruers.

851 OPINION/ORDER
With them on the briefs were John L. Prabhu were on the brief of amici curiae The Association for Competitive Technology and Computing Technology Industry Association in support of appellant. Burton was on the brief for amicus curiae Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism in support of appellant. Getman was on the brief for amicus curiae Association for Objective Law in support of appellant. With them on the brief were A. Naughton were on the brief for amici curiae America Online. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Lee A. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Carl Lundgren. There are three principal aspects of this appeal. Because the substantive provisions of the order are flawed. Microsoft asserts that the trial judge committed ethical violations by engaging in impermissible ex parte contacts and making inappropriate public comments on the merits of the case while it was pending. The oral arguments before this court we find that some but not all of Microsoft's liability challenges have merit. There are several reasons supporting this conclusion.
851 U.S. V. MICROSOFT

Holley argued the causes for appellant.
814 OPINION/ORDER
We agree and will reverse and remand for a new trial. Parks) was a general laborer for Allegheny Sand. Parks is his widow. Parks was killed while working with the Gradall machine. An excavator with two separate cabs that is used 2 for breaking boulders into smaller pieces. One cab is in the front. Is occupied by the driver of the vehicle. Is attached to and controls the excavating arm. The arm's counterweight are all in one line. The counterweight keeps the machine from tipping when the arm is used off center. Drove the machine to the back of a shed where the carbon was stored. Parks was pressed between the counterweight and the wall. Parks' 3 conduct could be viewed as a legal cause of his death only if it were unforeseeable. The jury found that the product was indeed defective. The verdict was presumably based on the finding of the jury that the defect was not
789 OPINION/ORDER
Claiming it was reversible error for the district court to allow the appellee's expert to testify about spoliation of evidence. The implantation was performed by Dr. Who told her there was no reason to suspect the implants were broken. Transue alleges that her injuries are permanent and that she will have to undergo periodic implant and explant surgery for her lifetime. The case then was transferred to federal court in the 12190 TRANSUE v. The individual cases were stayed pending a comprehensive uniform discovery program. Settlement negotiations were ongoing simultaneously. This case was remanded back to the Western District of Washington. The surviving claims were the standard product liability claims. BMS responded to Transue's claims by denying that its products were defective in design. Both of which were denied. STANDARD OF REVIEW
785 OPINION/ORDER
The Reliance policy was a comprehensive general liability (
771 OPINION/ORDER
Both plaintiffs appeal and submit the following three issues for our review: · Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motions for a new trial on the basis that the jury's apportionment of fault was against the great weight of the evidence. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. 3 Owens Corning that the complaints introduced in evidence are relevant to causation and sufficiently probative to survive Rule 403 scrutiny. We do not believe the jury was confused given the paucity of the evidence of Owens Corning's fault found in these cases and given further its decision to allocate 40% liability in the Becht case. This court reversed the district court's decision not to allow into evidence a prior complaint claiming the injuries alleged were caused by a different defendant. There is no principled reason to treat differently the allegations here. That other defendants were jointly liable. That the complaints were merely to preserve the ability to discover the proper defendant:
742 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was Keith H. Of counsel was Catherine L. Jackson may not collaterally challenge the district court's previous judgment that he is entitled to only $2.65 million rather than $12 million in damages for the manufacture. Which was affirmed in a previous appeal. Jackson is not entitled to a second trial as a matter of right simply because the district court stayed his counterclaims of indirect infringement. Jackson argued that the jury's damages award was reasonable based on the evidence that he adduced at trial showing the benefits Glenayre's customers enjoyed by infringing the '900 patent. Or conveying
740 OPINION/ORDER
Is a professional painter who was severely injured after falling from an elevated work platform. I. BACKGROUND Terry Minter was hired to work as a painter at a construction site in Tulsa. He was using a
734 OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs argued that they had produced sufficient circumstantial evidence to show the coffee maker was defective to preclude summary judgment as to both claims. Which under certain conditions permits recovery on a strict liability claim where there is only circumstantial evidence of a defect. Plaintiffs argued that Vermont law allows recovery where circumstantial evidence establishes that a defect in a product is the most likely cause of injury. Magistrate Judge Niedermeier determined Plaintiffs' circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to show that a defect in the coffee maker was the more probable cause of the fire when compared to all other possible causes. Where Malboeuf claims the coffee maker was located prior to the fire. Palmer ruled out the 3 possibility that the fire was the result of arson or careless smoking. Eliassen noted that the coffee maker had been reduced to very small pieces and there was a very heavy char pattern on the splash board behind the coffee maker. While Eliassen testified in his deposition that there were three other potential electrical sources of ignition in the area the electric range.
725 OPINION/ORDER
Declining to overturn the jury's verdict for LePage's in its suit against 3M under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (
721 OPINION/ORDER
Were on the briefs for appellant EPA. Argued the case and was on the briefs for appellant California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Were on the briefs for appellant California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Was on the briefs for the appellees. Was on the briefs for appellee cross appellant Shell. Owned and operated a facility at which toxic chemicals were stored and distributed. Part of the land on which the chemical operation was located was owned by two railroad companies (the Railroads). Some of the chemicals used by B&B were supplied and delivered to the facility by Shell Oil Company (Shell). B&B was defunct by that time. The agencies were thus left holding the bag for a great deal of money. All statutory citations are to Title 42 and the 2000 edition of the U.S. Claiming that it was not an
721 OPINION/ORDER
P.C. was on brief. L.L.P. was on brief. Chief Judge.
717 OPINION/ORDER
We find that it was appropriate. We agree with the District Court that as a matter of law defendants owed no duty to plaintiff and that the World 3 Trade Center bombing was not proximately caused by defendants' actions. We reject plaintiff's argument that the issues of duty and proximate causation were jury issues not properly decided by the court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Factual Background The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is the owner of the World Trade Center in New York City. Nitric acid used in the bomb were allegedly sold in New Jersey. The bomb was allegedly assembled in New Jersey by New Jersey residents. Are alleged to have manufactured. Defendant Arcadian Corporation is alleged to have manufactured. Alleged to have been purchased by the terrorists. Were sold in prill form. The prills were manufactured to be used as fertilizer. The terrorists are alleged to have rendered the prills explosive by adding these substances. The prills are not explosive in and of themselves.
713 OPINION/ORDER
The court's charge to the jury was insufficiently specific and LePage's's damages proof was speculative.2 The district court granted 3M's motion for 1. The plaintiffs in this action are LePage's Incorporated and LePage's Management Company. Both are appellees and cross appellants. 679 to which interest was to be added. We will affirm the district court's order granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to the
707 OPINION/ORDER
With whom Woods & Woods was on brief. Vila Carrion and Pinto Lugo & Rivera were on brief. This is a diversity action in which Antonio Acosta Mestre (
698 OPINION/ORDER
Robert Ford was a truck driver who hauled new automobiles for his employer. He was injured while untying a one ton pickup from his trailer. Ford when he was injured. GACS sold the trailer on which it was mounted to his employer. Sitting by designation. 2 1 Understanding the mechanics of the ratchet tie down system designed by GACS is critical to Ford's claims of negligence and product defect. Ford's trailer was equipped with a chain and ratchet system. A very manual intensive process that is commonly used by automobile transporters. The driver attaches the hooked end of a chain to a preformed slot on the vehicle's frame and the other end of the chain is affixed to the ratchet device's spool. Which is mounted on the trailer. The ratchet is then rotated to tighten the chain around the spool. As the ratchet is rotated. Which is inserted into holes around the outside of the ratchet. Because the pawl clicks into place automatically as the spool is turned. The driver is able to use both hands and both arms to exert force on the tie down bar to tie down the vehicle.
696 OPINION/ORDER
We are revisiting this products liability case after a third trial on the alleged defectiveness of a forklift for its manufacturer's failure to equip it with an operator restraint system. Our task is to determine whether the district court's evidentiary rulings. Were consistent with Pennsylvania's crashworthiness law and its public policy which underlies it. I. John Habecker was a civilian employee of the New Cumberland Army Depot when the forklift he was backing down a ramp tumbled from the side of the ramp. Habecker was tragically killed when the forklift fell on top of him. The forklift was manufactured in 1977 by Clark Equipment Company and was not designed with an operator restraint system (ORS). Alleging that the forklift was defective due to the lack of an ORS. Asserting that such evidence was inadmissible in a products liability suit governed by Pennsylvania law. We are confident that it will carefully limit the admissibility of such evidence on re trial.
696 OPINION/ORDER
ESQUIRE McDermott Will & Emery 227 West Monroe Street. This case involves twelve1 consolidated appeals from the District Court's order approving Combustion Engineering's bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization under 11 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.2 We will vacate and remand. The state and federal judicial systems have struggled with an avalanche of asbestos lawsuits. The difficulties with asbestos litigation have been well documented by RAND and others.3 Efforts to resolve the asbestos problem through global settlement class actions under Fed. P. 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(1)(B) have so far been unsuccessful. Mounting asbestos liabilities have pushed otherwise viable companies into bankruptcy. The centerpiece of the Plan is an injunction in favor of Combustion Engineering that channels all of its asbestos claims to a post confirmation trust (the
694 OPINION/ORDER
One of these subcontractors was 2 Hull. Various logistical and timing issues plagued the manufacture and delivery of the freeze dryers before they were eventually installed at Huadu's facility in China in April 1997. These tests would have held the freeze dryers to even more stringent standards than did the failed start up test. Satisfaction of the performance tests was required by the Huadu Contract. The result was an agreement among Huadu. March 1998 was set as the date by which modifications would be completed and Huadu would grant final acceptance. Several particular provisions of the APA are relevant to our discussion. The first is a list of purchase assets. The second provision at issue is Section 7.8. Which states that: Purchaser will. At the location of the customer) or accept returns of products of the Business shipped by [Hull] on and prior to the Closing Date ... which are defective or which fail to conform to the customer's order in accordance with the following provisions (but [SPI] does not hereby assume any liability to any third party claimant. ...).
684 OPINION/ORDER
678 OPINION/ORDER
* Circuit Judges ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case. 1998 *Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 CORRECTED REPRINT Filed November 12. D.C. 20006 *Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 GARY R. We will affirm the District Court's decertification order and its grant of summary judgment. 6 I. Ciaran McNally are Pennsylvania residents who began smoking cigarettes before the age of 15 and have smoked for many years. The defendants are The American Tobacco Company. Inc. have been dismissed from this action without prejudice. Industries p.l.c. was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction by order of the District Court dated June 21. Finding that
678 OPINION/ORDER
D.C. 20006 *Judge Seitz heard argument in this matter but was unable to clear the opinion. 2 GARY R. We will affirm the District Court's decertification order and its grant of summary judgment. 6 I. Ciaran McNally are Pennsylvania residents who began smoking cigarettes before the age of 15 and have smoked for many years. The defendants are The American Tobacco Company. Inc. have been dismissed from this action without prejudice. Industries p.l.c. was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction by order of the District Court dated June 21. Finding that
674 OPINION/ORDER
A disease he claims was caused by exposure to asbestos released from products manufactured by defendants appellees. I. Lindstrom was employed from 1963 until 1994 as a merchant seaman. Lindstrom was allegedly exposed to many pieces of equipment that contained asbestos. Lindstrom was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma of the peritoneum in October 1999 and died of this disease on June 15. Peebles were appointed as administrators of Lindstrom's estate and were substituted as plaintiffs. Only the products liability claims are at issue in this appeal. Summary judgment is appropriate where
670 OPINION/ORDER
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter is before the court following entry of our order on November 30. We will reverse the order of the district court denying Kerr McGee's motion for summary judgment entered on September 8. We will remand the matter to the district court for entry of a summary judgment in its favor. The facts are largely not in dispute. We will refer to Lindsay and Kerr McGee simply as Kerr McGee. Have been dismissed from the case. Welsbach was dissolved in 1944. Who are sisters. They assert that it is liable by reason of its acquisition of Welsbach's gas mantle business. Because the toxic by products were generated directly from the manufacturing of Welsbach's gas mantles.[fn2] Thus. We will apply New Jersey law as the parties agree that it is applicable. The purchasing corporation is strictly liable for the injuries caused by defects in the units of the same product line. Ramirez is distinguishable from this case. Their parents were not caused by a unit in the product line manufactured first by Welsbach and then by Kerr McGee.
670 OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm the District Court's order for a new trial. Because the issues of liability and damages were so intertwined as to make a fair trial on damages alone impossible. We will reverse and remand for a new trial on all issues. S 1983 alleging that he was subjected to excessive use of for ce on September 15 and 27. Pryer was in the prison exercise yard when he began arguing and fighting with another inmate. Then transferred him to the Restricted Housing Unit (
663 JENNINGS V. BIC CORP. (7/22/1999, NO. 95-2963)
663 JENNINGS V. BIC CORP. (7/22/1999, NO. 95-2963)
659 OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm. The EPA concluded remedial action was necessary to protect human health. Was responsible for the lead contamination. Was long 3 since out of business. Alleging it was responsible for Price Battery's CERCLA liability as a successor in interest. Exide is General Battery's successor. The disputed issue is whether General Battery. Was a successor to Price Battery. The relevant aspects of the Price/General transaction are as follows. Price Battery was owned by a single shareholder. A seat on General's board of directors.1 At The only Price Battery asset nominally excluded from the transaction was its real property. When the deed was transferred to General for $1.00. 000 General Battery shares were valued at approximately $1 million and represented 4.537% of General's outstanding equity. William Price Sr.'s resulting stake in General Battery was comparable to that of the company's cofounders. Was required under the agreement to immediately change its name to Price Investment Company and to retain $150.
659 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DPA is a Washington based general partnership. SIADS is a subsidiary of Smiths Industries. SP&A was compensated with a $50. The 1974 Agreement was modified by another agreement that provided for a similar representation arrangement. The 1980 Agreement was negotiated by Michael Pietromonaco (
659 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 1291. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY DPA is a Washington based general partnership. SIADS is a subsidiary of Smiths Industries. SP&A was compensated with a $50. The 1974 Agreement was modified by another agreement that provided for a similar representation arrangement. The 1980 Agreement was negotiated by Michael Pietromonaco (
657 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief was John S. Of counsel on the brief were James F. With her on the brief were Peter D. The United States is liable for the use of a method patent only when it practices every step of the claimed method in the United States. I. Zoltek Corporation (
655 OPINION/ORDER
Daniel Williams severely injured his hand in a machine that he was operating for his employer. The machine was manufactured by REP International of 1 2 France for ENBI of Holland (
655 CRUDE COMPANY V. FERC
649 OPINION/ORDER
J.) held that Michigan law shields pharmaceutical companies from products liability claims unless there is. The power of states to govern in this field is considerable and undisputed. 756 (1985) (
649 OPINION/ORDER
J.) held that Michigan law shields pharmaceutical companies from products liability claims unless there is. The power of states to govern in this field is considerable and undisputed. 756 (1985) (
647 HYMAN V. NATIONWIDE MUT. FIRE INS. CO. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-15497)

Circuit Judge:

647 HYMAN V. NATIONWIDE MUT. FIRE INS. CO. (9/6/2002, NO. 01-15497)

Circuit Judge:

645 OPINION/ORDER
Will & Emery. I A McKenzie and PeaceHealth are the only two providers of hospital care in Lane County. That the relevant market in this case is the market for primary and secondary acute care hospital services in Lane County. Primary and secondary acute care hospital services are common medical services like setting a broken bone and performing a tonsillectomy. McKenzie's sole endeavor is McKenzie Willamette Hospital. The largest of PeaceHealth's three facilities is Sacred Heart Hospital. It is necessary to appreciate the structure of the market in which this case arises. The market for hospital services and medical care is complex. Insurers are usually commercial health insurance companies that seek to buy medical services from hospitals on the best terms possible. The price agreed upon is often referred to as a
641 OPINION/ORDER
This is a products liability matter. Who are the recipients of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants. Seek to impose liability upon The Dow Chemical Company (Dow Chemical) for injuries alleged to have been caused by the implants. The pretrial proceedings in these various personal injury actions were consolidated in the District of Minnesota by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (1994). A TMJ implant is a device 1 Plaintiffs appeal the final order of the We granting summary judgment in favor of Dow Chemical. that is surgically inserted to replace an improperly functioning TMJ. Plaintiffs assert that Dow Chemical is liable because of its The Honorable Paul A. All nonbreast implant claims pending against Dow Corning have been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Among Dow Chemical's services were approximately a dozen limited toxicology tests performed on a variety of silicone compounds from 1943 through the early 1970s. used safely as a medical implant.3 Three Dow Chemical scientists.
639 OPINION/ORDER
Consolidating approximately 280 products liability actions for pretrial purposes under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (1994) (
635 99-5223 -- VBF, INC. V. CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE CO. -- 08/28/2001

In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
632 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 (
632 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 (
632 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 (
632 OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 1) Add the following sentence to the end of the third paragraph of section III. Judges O'Scannlain and Gould have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Circuit Judge: This is a products liability action involving pacemakers containing the allegedly defective ENCOR Bipolar Passive Fixation Pacing Lead Model 330 854 (
630 OPINION/ORDER
000 Three Mile Island area residents who allege that they have developed neoplasms2 as a result of the radiation released into the environment as a result of the reactor accident. The first appeal is that of a group of ten trial plaintiffs who were selected by the parties after the District Court adopted the plaintiffs' case management order. The critical issue there is the trial plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate that they were exposed to doses of radiation sufficient to cause their neoplasms. Defendants challenged the admissibility of the experts' testimony and the District Court was therefore required to hold extensive in limine hearings pursuant to its
630 OPINION/ORDER
The documents to be produced were created before the insureds purchased coverage. The insureds have appealed from that order. They have also filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate and reverse the order. The six law firms and the accounting firm that have been subpoenaed to produce documents have moved to intervene and join in the insureds' requests for relief. We will grant the petitioners' request for relief and issue a writ of mandamus to the district court and direct it to vacate its order that these documents be produced. The Parties and the Nature of the Proceedings Rhône Poulenc Rorer Inc. is the successor to the Rorer Group Inc. One of Armour's products was Factorate. Armour was named in the first of a series of lawsuits filed by individuals who claimed Factorate had infected them with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Which is thought to be the cause of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). They allege they are insureds under a primary comprehensive general liability insurance policy provided by The Home Indemnity Company.
628 98-6135 -- WOOLARD V. JLG INDUSTRIES INC. -- 04/25/2000

Circuit Judge.

628 OPINION/ORDER
The district court adopted a Report and Recommendation that recommended granting summary judgment to Liberty Mutual based upon the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that asbestosrelated personal injury claims asserted against Treesdale and PMP are one occurrence under the terms of the disputed insurance policies and that a Non Cumulation provision in those policies precludes stacking coverage. We will affirm. Several thousand asbestos exposure claims have been filed against Treesdale to date. The asbestos claims are typically filed by steel workers who worked in the open hearth part of steel mills and others who claim to have had contact with the open hearth. Liberty Mutual issued primary liability policies to PMP is a division of Treesdale. Both will be referred to as
626 OPINION/ORDER
These costs have been or will be incurred by plaintiff appellant Morton International. Who are not parties to this appeal. We will remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The following facts are undisputed. A mercury processing plant was operated at the Site. The plant was the largest domestic producer of intermediate inorganic mercury compounds. The compounds were formulated. The plant was owned by F.W. It was transferred to Wood Ridge Chemical Corporation (its parent company is Velsicol Chemical Corporation) in 1960. The plant was closed in 1974. Velsicol and Morton were held strictly liable. That judgment was upheld following numerous appeals and successive litigation. Various other entities were required to perform a remedial investigation/feasibility study for the Site. Morton is trying to recover from other allegedly responsible parties some of the costs it has incurred and will continue to incur to clean up the Site. The defendants argue that Morton's characterization of the PVM transactions is inaccurate.
620 OPINION/ORDER
The action was brought in federal court on behalf of Abbott shareholders against Abbott's board of directors alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties and are liable under Illinois law for harm resulting from a consent decree which required Abbott to pay a $100 million civil fine to the FDA. An order vacating the panel opinion was issued on August 2. Is a diversified health care company that develops and markets pharmaceutical. These products are heavily regulated by the FDA and must be manufactured in accordance with the
618 OPINION/ORDER
We follow the South Carolina appellate courts' consistent holdings that the doctrines of strict liability and negligence are distinct theories of recovery in a products liability case. Were killed. Five year old Felisha Moore was permanently disabled. When their rental house was destroyed by fire. The jury expressly rejected Plaintiffs' theory that the absence of a child resistant safety feature was a design defect resulting in strict liability. That Cricket negligently designed the lighter and that this negligent design was the proximate cause of the deadly fire. The jury was asked to apportion the fault between each of the adult plaintiffs and Cricket on separate verdict forms. The jury determined that Cricket was twenty percent at fault while Brock was eighty percent 1 John K. Talkington is the personal representative of the estates of Ashley Moore. Pamela Quigley is the personal representative of the estates of Allen Moore and Sueanne Brock. The adult plaintiffs' claims were extinguished.2 At the conclusion of the damages phase.
618 OPINION/ORDER
Beliveau & Pachios was on brief for appellant. Ashley & Bull was on brief for appellee Rodney A. With whom Hale & Hamlin was on brief for appellee Young Brothers & Company. Before us is Vernay's appeal of the district court's judgment. Also before us is Sullivan's cross appeal of the district court's finding that Young Brothers was not liable. Almost verbatim from the district court's detailed opinion. 2 The SEA FEVER is a forty foot. Which was composed. Which is a manufacturer of various fiberglass components of marine wet exhaust systems. Was the parts supplier from which Young Brothers purchased the Vernatube installed aboard the SEA FEVER. The SEA FEVER's wet exhaust system was constructed with a fifteen foot length of Vernatube. Because Vernatube is sold in ten foot lengths. This span of Vernatube was connected to the engine at the exhaust manifold by a flexible rubber hose and rigidly installed in the hull of the vessel by fiberglass where the Vernatube passed through the fish hold bulkhead. It was also fiberglassed to each of the two bulkheads and the transom 1 Sullivan's complaint included claims against H & H Propeller under theories of strict liability and breach of express and implied warranties.
616 OPINION/ORDER
This case was initially argued before the panel of Judges Roth. Judge Chagares was added to the panel. ** * Judge Roth assumed senior status May 31. Plaintiffs are five factory workers who allege serious and permanent hand injuries after years of using defendant's swager. Plaintiffs claim that the swager was defectively designed because it emitted excessive vibration. That the swager was
616 OPINION/ORDER
616 OPINION/ORDER
Travelers was known as The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. Gerling was not required to honor that allocation under the
616 DYNACORE HOLDINGS CORP., ET AL. V. U.S. PHILIPS CORP., ET AL.

Argued for plaintiffs appellants.  With him on the brief were Peter T. Inc. and Quadmation Incorporated.  With him on the brief was Luann L. Inc.  Of coun
616 OPINION/ORDER
Retailers who market wallpaper by providing sample books and showroom displays have feuded with dealers who sell at a discount through toll free
616 OPINION/ORDER
Appellant Paul Forrest appeals the District Court's entry of final judgment and its denial of his motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in favor of appellee Beloit Corporation 2 (
614 OPINION/ORDER
P.C. were on brief. Burling were on brief. Flom LLP were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. Chief Judge.
612 OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn and replaced by the attached opinion. The Oil Companies' petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. Is also DENIED. Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide who must pay for cleaning up the McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton. The site was contaminated with hazardous waste associated with the production of aviation fuel during World War II. Contending that the United States was liable for cleanup costs. The district court held that the Oil Companies were liable as
612 01-4226 -- BROWN V. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO. -- 05/14/2003

Who suffered injuries when he was backed over by a riding lawnmower. Was defective in design. While Andrew McManus was using a Sears Craftsman lawn tractor. Andrew turned around to look for Kelton and saw that he was underneath the lawn mower. His first and second toes were amputated. Is a mower deck containing two blades. A lever on the dashboard to engage and disengage the mower blades.

Central to Plaintiff's claims is the capacity of the tractor to operate in reverse while the mower blades are engaged. Operators have difficulty seeing small children who are standing within two feet of the rear of the tractor. Plaintiff maintains that if a tractor backs into a child while the mower blades are rotating. The child sustains worse injuries than if the tractor backs into a child while the blades are turned off.

In Plaintiff's view. Such backover blade contact injuries are a preventable risk. Plaintiff contends that this feature substantially reduces the chances that children will suffer blade contact injuries in backover accidents.

610 OPINION/ORDER
With whom Antonio Gnocchi Franco was on brief for appellant. The plaintiff was driving a 1994 Toyota Corolla when she was involved in a high speed multi automobile accident. Her automobile was propelled forward into the vehicle in front of it and the air bags in her car deployed. That her abrasions were caused by the air bags in the automobile. That the air bags were defectively designed. That the defendant was liable under a theory of strict products liability. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff's failure to preserve the automobile for the defendant's inspection was prejudicial and warranted dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint. Her dermatologist testified that her injuries were second degree burns due to abrasions and that they were inconsistent with a traumatic impact with a blunt object. They have significantly reduced injuries and fatalities from car accidents. He opined that there is no feasible alternative design for the air bags that would reduce the danger posed by their high speed deployment while maintaining their efficacy.
608 OPINION/ORDER
Because the fraud verdict is inconsistent with Missouri law. We have no alternative but to reverse that part of the judgment. Guy's brand sales were approximately $100 million per year. Guy's brand products were off the market for a short time. Heartland's intent was to return Guy's brand products to their former strong market position. Which was also in the snack food business. Heartland and McCleary reached a written agreement
606 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellee. For harm to a building into which its product (containing asbestos fibers) was installed. Used in constructing a building occupied and used at all relevant times by plaintiff (an entity designated in the general contract for construction of the building as
602 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide who must pay for cleaning up the McColl Superfund Site in Fullerton. The site was contaminated with hazardous wastes associated with the production of aviation fuel during World War II. Contending that the United States was liable for cleanup costs. The district court held that the Oil Companies were liable as
599 ELAN PHARM. RESEARCH CORP. V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU (6/26/1998, NO. 96-9249)

Plc (
599 ELAN PHARM. RESEARCH CORP. V. EMPLOYERS INS. OF WAUSAU (6/26/1998, NO. 96-9249)

Plc (
599 97-1095 -- MORRISON KNUDSEN CORP. V. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE CO. -- 05/11/1999

GIT's evidence of several of its categories of damages was insufficient. Its claims on behalf of its lower tier subcontractors were premature. This court cannot determine whether any parts of the jury's award were for allowable categories of damages supported by sufficient evidence. The contract price was roughly $9.3 million. GIT's central theory is that its plan to complete the project before the deadline displeased MK. The contract allowed MK to do so if GIT was not prosecuting the work with a diligence that would ensure its timely completion. The subs were demanding payment from GIT. GIT was still involved in litigation with Robinson and had not settled with or paid Bogue or GA Western. Arguing that GIT had changed its damage theory just weeks before trial and was using previously undisclosed documentation.

Twelve days before trial. GIT's Alleged Discovery Violation

MK argues that GIT's supplemental damage disclosure was subject to mandatory exclusion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).

599 OPINION/ORDER
The defendant cross appellant appeals the district court's decision to grant the insured's motion for summary judgment on the question of coverage under the
599 OPINION/ORDER
Honorable Stanley Marcus was a U.S. When this appeal was argued and taken under submission. Plc (
599 OPINION/ORDER
Valhal and Sullivan have both filed appeals from the order of the district court denying Sullivan's motion for partial summary judgment and granting Valhal's motion for partial summary judgment. The district concluded that the disputed clause was part of the contract but that it violated public policy and was therefore unenforceable. We will reverse. I. Factual and Procedural Background Valhal is a New York corporation which specializes in the management and development of real estate. Is a Pennsylvania corporation specializing in architectural. A document entitled
599 OPINION/ORDER
Will affirm the District Court's order on this basis. I. Factual and Procedural Background This case is the latest of a series of legal actions attempting to affix liability against these appellees for COPR contamination in New Jersey in both the state and federal courts. The instant litigation centers around seven different sites along the New Jersey Turnpike that the Turnpike alleges have been contaminated with COPR. Were processors of chromium ore. Occidental were the only companies in New Jersey processing chromium. The next closest chromate chemical production facility was in Glens Falls. The NJDEP stated that the Directive was issued for the following purposes: in order to notify [Allied. Pursuant to the provisions of the [Spill Act] has determined that it is necessary to remove or arrange for the removal of certain hazardous 1. The parties appear to be in agreement that it is site 192 that is at issue in this case. 2. The Turnpike was made aware of the presence of COPR at some of the sites at issue in this case from the Director of the Hazardous Waste Task Force of New Jersey in 1984.
599 OPINION/ORDER
Is precluded from relitigating the issue of its successor liability for Raymark's asbestos liabilities. We conclude that Raytech is collaterally estopped from relitigating this issue. Will. Was named as the defendant in thousands of personal injury complaints around the country.[fn1] As a result of this burgeoning asbestos litigation. Schmoll and Raymark/Raytech agreed to submit to the district court the question whether Raytech was a successor in liability to Raymark Industries. The district court found that Raytech was a successor in liability to Raymark Industries for Raymark's production. That Raytech was legally responsible for Raymark's strict liability torts. Raytech then filed this adversary proceeding seeking a declaratory judgment that it is not liable for the asbestos related torts of Raymark. The adversary proceeding was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The case was then transferred. The district court certified for immediate appeal the Connecticut district court's ruling that Raytech was estopped from denying successor liability.
597 OPINION/ORDER
Because it is unclear from the record whether the intervenor's interest was affected by the subsequent consent decree. We will vacate the district court's orders denying the motion to intervene and approving the subsequent consent decree. The McAdoo site was used for waste incineration and recycling from 1975 until it closed in 1979. At that time there were approximately 6. It contained a provision stating the government's
595 99-4067 -- PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO. V. HAUGEN -- 08/23/2000

G is a corporate agent of Satan. Is the manufacturer and distributor of numerous products for personal care. Who in turn follow suit in a cycle that replicates itself. (Id. at 3079 81.) There is record evidence that Amway distributors are responsible for inspiring and encouraging distributors to whom they sell. Who in turn are encouraged to emulate those above them in the Amway distribution hierarchy. (IX App. at 2915:21 2916:20. X App. at 3213:16 3214:15.) Although Amway distributors are strongly encouraged to purchase. Amway and its distributors have the ability to send messages to. Haugen is a distributor of Amway products and a developer of Amway business in the Amway distribution chain. At the time this action was commenced. Walker International Network (hereinafter
595 99-4067A -- PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO. V. HAUGEN -- 08/23/2000

Which were not intended to be included in the published opinion. A corrected copy of the opinion is attached.

Sincerely. G is a corporate agent of Satan. Is the manufacturer and distributor of numerous products for personal care. There is record evidence that Amway distributors are responsible for inspiring and encouraging distributors to whom they sell. Who in turn are encouraged to emulate those above them in the Amway distribution hierarchy. Although Amway distributors are strongly encouraged to purchase. Amway and its distributors have the ability to send messages to. Haugen is a distributor of Amway products and a developer of Amway business in the Amway distribution chain. At the time this action was commenced. Walker International Network (hereinafter

595 OPINION/ORDER
ORDER Intervenors Appellants have filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The appellants' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was submitted to this Court. 2 As the panel considered the petition for rehearing and is of the opinion that it should be denied. IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied. It is ORDERED that footnote 3 on page 25 of the printed slip opinion is amended to read as follows: The intervenors have urged us to refer to the Maryland Court of Appeals the questions of Maryland law involved in this case. The arguments of each to the district court were the opposite. The intervenors appeal from the district court's decision adopting what is called the pro rata rule of Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Holding that the intervenors' claims are subject to an aggregate limit by reason of the
593 OPINION/ORDER
Moessner was substituted as appellant after 3 VE filed a bankruptcy petition and assigned to Moessner its rights in the coverage litigation in exchange for his releasing VE from liability and dismissing his products liability lawsuit. We find no merit in Moessner's contentions that: (1) the policy was ambiguous and should therefore be interpreted in his favor. (2) the TPE was rendered invalid by Reliance's failure to obtain approval by the Insurance Commissioner. (3) Reliance is precluded from relying on the TPE by the doctrines of unilateral mistake or illusory coverage. The most important and difficult issues on appeal are: (1) whether VE's status as a sophisticated insured renders the doctrine of the parties' reasonable expectations inapplicable. (2) whether VE had a reasonable expectation of coverage under the renewal policy because its original policy would have covered Moessner's claim. VE was never told that the TPE was being included in the renewal policy. We will reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of Reliance and remand for further proceedings.
591 OPINION/ORDER
This is a products liability case. Also that the profiler presented an obvious risk which could have been avoided had Surace exercised reasonable care. Whether a product's condition justifies placing the risk of loss on the supplier is a threshold question of law for the court to determine. Were factors weighing in favor of CMI. (2) in relying on Surace's own conduct to determine that the profiler was not unreasonably dangerous. We will reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We will affirm the district court's judgment insofar as it excluded Surace's expert witness Harold Brink from testifying under Fed. Was working on the New Jersey side of the Betsy Ross Bridge. The work crew was using a PR 450 pavement profiler. The crew was operating the profiler without the conveyor assembly. The crew was required to level manually the piles of debris left behind by the profiler. Surace was working as a left side sensor man. He was responsible for signaling the profiler's operator.
591 OPINION/ORDER
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. If California's negligence and public nuisance law were so unsettled as to allow for the majority's creative interpretation of California law. We should have certified the issues to the California Supreme Court. A This is indeed a tragic case. A mentally troubled man who was prohibited by federal law from purchasing a gun. He was armed with a number of firearms. Is not against Furrow or even against the entities that sold the weapons to Furrow. A secondary market where persons who are illegal purchasers and have injurious intent obtain their firearms. Plaintiffs do not allege that Glock1 did anything illeGlock is the manufacturer of one of the guns that Furrow used to injure his victims. Glock is sometimes used as a shorthand reference to all the remaining defendants. 1 6854 ILETO v. Plaintiffs allege that
587 EHLERT V. SINGER (3/30/2001, NO. 00-10163)

Chief Judge: This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims under §§ 11. Medical Manager Corporation (
587 OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Were on brief for appellee FTP Software. Were on brief. The company announced that sales growth had declined and that it would have lower earnings. The stock price was $8 per share. Plaintiffs' suit was filed on March 3. It was dismissed on September 24. The PSLRA imposes requirements for pleading with particularity that are consistent with this circuit's prior rigorous requirements for pleading fraud with particularity under Fed. Is closer to being a lesser form of intent. This was allegedly done in furtherance of a scheme to inflate revenues by improperly booking contingent transactions as final sales. The complaint was adequate to survive. Plaintiffs appeal saying that summary judgment on the white out allegations was inappropriate. That they are given refuge by Rule 56(f). That the dismissal of the remaining allegations was improper. That they were entitled to amend their complaint. The demand for FTP's software was diminishing because many of FTP's clients were either developing the technology themselves or acquiring competing systems from other manufacturers.
587 EHLERT V. SINGER (3/30/2001, NO. 00-10163)

Chief Judge: This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims under §§ 11. Medical Manager Corporation (
587 OPINION/ORDER
We will affirm. Inc. has been manufacturing and distributing commercial electronic security control systems since 1967.1 Its devices are designed to track the physical location of goods and are sold to retailers to prevent merchandise theft. It is one of the two dominant manufacturers in the retail security products market. Which is registered with the United States Trademark office.2 1. Our recitation of the facts will be brief. Its principal and most successful products are electronic article surveillance systems designed to alert retailers when items are removed from confined areas. The systems work by placing circuited tags on merchandise which are deactivated at the time of sale. If the tags are not deactivated. Checkpoint Systems also manufactures electronic access control systems in the form of security cards that permit selected personnel to have access to restricted areas. Checkpoint Systems intends to use these electronic access control systems to make
587 OPINION/ORDER
Chief Judge: This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims under §§ 11. Medical Manager Corporation (
587 OPINION/ORDER
This is such a case. It is a class action that seeks to settle the claims of between 250. 000 individuals who have been exposed to asbestos products against the twenty companies known as the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR).[fn2] Most notably. These
585 GENETIC IMPLANT V. CORE-VENT
585 OPINION/ORDER
After Judge Paez was elevated to the Ninth Circuit. Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs Appellants are the trustees of the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund (
585 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Jonathan G. Of counsel on the brief was Laura A. With him on the brief were David R. Of counsel on the brief were James H. With him on the brief was Kurt L. Of counsel on the brief was Jennifer K. Holding that Microsoft was liable for infringement of AT&T's United States Reissue Patent 32. Replicate the master versions in generating multiple copies of Windows® for installation on foreign assembled computers that are then sold to foreign customers. The master versions are created in the United States and are sent abroad on so called
585 OPINION/ORDER
Geurin was awarded damages. Was cooking chicken in the pressure cooker when the lid popped open. Geurin was severely burned. WINSTON PRODUCTS defense #6 asserted that third parties were liable for Geurin's damages. Affirmative defense #4 asserted that Geurin's damages were
581 OPINION/ORDER
Were telling architects that the partitions of Santana Products. They contended that they could not be held liable for Santana's claims because they were merely petitioning the government about a safety matter. An action which was protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Arguing that the claims were barred either by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches. We will affirm the District Bobrick Corporation is the parent company of Bobrick Washroom Equipment. We will refer to them collectively as Bobrick. 4 1 Court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Santana's Sherman Act § 1 claim and its tortious interference with prospective contract claim.2 However. Because we conclude that the Lanham Act claim is barred by the doctrine of laches. We will reverse the granting of summary judgment on that claim. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are taken primarily from the District Court's very thorough opinion.3 A. The Toilet Partition Industry Santana and Bobrick manufacture toilet partitions.4 Toilet partitions are made of different materials.
581 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: This is a punitive damages case involving nominal compensatory damages brought by a corporation for racial discrimination. So we state the facts and interpret the evidence most favorably to the party that was successful at trial.1 The facts are well laid out in the published decision of the district court.2 In 1999 an Olympic Pipeline Company petroleum pipeline ruptured. Deep Bains are American citizens who were born in the Punjab region of India. They were the first Sikh family in the area.
579 OPINION/ORDER
Amana is a
579 INTERGRAPH CORP V. INTEL CORP

Of counsel on the brief were David Vance Lucas. With him on the brief was Joel M. Of counsel on the brief were Peter . Intel is a manufacturer of high performance computer microprocessors. The microprocessors are sold to producers of various computer based devices. Who adapt and integrate the microprocessors into products that are designed and sold for particular uses. These producers are called original equipment manufacturers. Intergraph Corporation is an OEM. Sells computer workstations that are used in producing computer aided graphics. From 1987 to 1993 Intergraph's workstations were based on a high performance microprocessor developed by the Fairchild division of National Semiconductor. Embodying what is called the
577 OPINION/ORDER
The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Claiming those components were defective and caused the explosion. Which we have consolidated for disposition. I. Background Kiln B is a brick making facility. It was constructed in 1981 by defendant Hans Lingl Anlagenbau Und Verfahrenstechnik GMBH & Co. Was a set of preheat burners equipped with a Flame Supervision System (FSS). The purpose of the FSS was to stop the flow of natural gas to the preheat burners when a flame was not detected.
After its installation. Gas flowed into the kiln via the preheat burner valves for five to seven minutes before the ignition switch was thrown. Travelers maintained that the information sought was protected by the attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine. Holding that Travelers was precluded from presenting evidence in addition to or contrary to the evidence it produced at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Which was inadequate to resist summary judgment.
577 OPINION/ORDER
Awarding monetary and injunctive relief in favor of the United States following a civil jury trial at which defendants were found to have violated reporting requirements of the Controlled Substances Act. 2 which awarded the United States a $2 million monetary penalty and injunctive relief after a civil jury trial at which defendants were found to have repeatedly violated a provision of the Controlled Substances Act (the
573 OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND Ellen Kennedy died in 1996 of chronic myelogenous leukemia (
573 OPINION/ORDER
Hector Pacheco was severely and permanently injured when the tire he was removing or about to remove from a Coats 40 40 tire changer exploded and launched from the tire changer table top. We must decide whether there is substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict on the questions of product defect and proximate causation. Had just completed a tire change using a Coats 40 40 tire changer and was about to lift the tire from the surface of the machine. The tire and tire rim were thrust from the surface of the tire changer and one or both of them apparently struck Mr. The manufacturers of the tire and tire rim have not been identified. Whether the injury was necessarily the result of contact with the trajectile. Is based on evidence that the table top of the Coats 40 40 served virtually as a
573 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: We are asked to decide whether. Both the circuit boards supplied by Anthem and KLA's final scanner products were quality tested before they were shipped to customers. Were physically defective such that heat. Anthem admits that these defects were due to manufacturing flaws (though it blames its own subcontractor for these flaws). KLA was forced to replace them and to incur other unexpected costs due to the loss of use of the scanners into which Anthem's circuit boards had been installed. It alleges that the circuit boards supplied by Anthem were defective. The following: · Approximately $2.2 million in depreciation expenses for
573 OPINION/ORDER
BACKGROUND Ellen Kennedy died in 1996 of chronic myelogenous leukemia (
571 OPINION/ORDER
Based on its determination that Horn's claims against TCI are preempted by the express preemption provision in the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (the
569 OPINION/ORDER
569 OPINION/ORDER
This is a products liability case brought by David E. He and his staff were exposed to toxic mercury vapors when removing old fillings and inserting new ones. That Kerr's amalgams are the major source of his alleged mercury poisoning. Which was initially brought in a Tennessee trial court. Was removed to federal court by Kerr on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Despite holding that the expert testimony offered by Barnes was admissible. Concluding that Barnes had not established that Kerr was responsible for the vast majority of his exposure to mercury and that. The numerous warnings provided by Kerr were adequate as a matter of law. He was a practicing dentist in the United States Navy and. There are approximately
569 OHIO CELLULAR PRODUCTS CORP. V. ADAMS USA INC.

With him on the brief were Jack A. Of counsel was David W. The plaintiff in this infringement suit which was dismissed after the asserted patents were held invalid. Nelson is the president and sole stockholder of Ohio Cellular. His motion was denied on May 18. This appeal was timely filed. It was submitted for our decision following oral argument on February 3. Because we conclude that under the particular circumstances of this case the district court did not abuse its discretion in adding Nelson as a third party defendant and amending the judgment quantifying the fee award to obligate Nelson individually after post trial proceedings were concluded. The asserted patents were found invalid for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) (1994). The infringement complaint was therefore dismissed. Cir. 1996) (table).

After the judgment of invalidity was affirmed. Ohio Cellular's motion for reconsideration was denied on September 25. After an evidentiary hearing was held. Had withheld material prior art from the United States Patent and Trademark Office with the intent to deceive.3 The judgment that Ohio Cellular committed inequitable conduct is not here disputed.

After judgment on liability for fees was entered.

569 OPINION/ORDER
When the site was owned by R&H's predecessor (
566 FESTO CORP V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO

With him on the brief were Gerald T. Of counsel on the brief were Charles L. Also of counsel on the brief was James B. With him on the brief was Louis T. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph R. Of counsel on the brief were John G. Also of counsel on the brief were Rory J. With him on the brief were Kendrew H. Of counsel on the brief were Perry M. Also on the brief was Mark J. Of counsel on the brief were Frederick T. Also of counsel on the brief was J. Of counsel on the brief was James W. Circuit Judge.

564 OPINION/ORDER
Asserting that its claim for indemnification arose out of a contractual and legal relationship with Evenflo and hence was not a
564 OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: The main issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion when it dismissed several claims of Daewoo Motor America. Were violated after a Korean bankruptcy court approved a sale of the assets and liabilities of the Korean parent company of Daewoo America and the defendants then sold in the United States automobiles manufactured by GMDAT. Daewoo America was a claimant represented by counsel in the Korean bankruptcy proceedings but. I. BACKGROUND Daewoo America was incorporated in 1997 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Daewoo Motor Co. The parties agree that
562 OPINION/ORDER
The windows apparently were defectively installed by Scott. Auto Owners asserted that the damages Pozzi was seeking were not covered. Auto Owners continued to maintain that there was no coverage for the costs of repair or replacement of the windows. Auto Owners took the position that there was no coverage. Shortly after the mediation was scheduled. Irby and Klett were not informed prior to the filing of the notice of appearance that Berger would be taking over Irby's representation. Which was entered by the state court. Pozzi was entitled to recover from Coral and Irby $646. Pozzi also asserted that Auto Owners' conduct was in bad faith (Count Two). It was entitled to fees and costs incurred by Coral and Irby in prosecuting this action (Count Three). Seeking a determination that it had no duty to defend Coral and Irby and that there was no coverage under the Policies for the claims asserted in the underlying litigation. Before the case was submitted for the jury's consideration. Auto 6 Owners moved for a directed verdict concluding that there was no bad faith and that punitive damages were inappropriate.
562 00-7020 -- ECK V. PARKE, DAVIS & CO. -- 07/17/2001

Which is manufactured and distributed by Warner Lambert. Which is distributed by Rugby. The district court found that the Ecks' claims were barred by the learned intermediary doctrine. We are called upon to decide only the liability of these defendants. The liability of other actors is not before us.

562 OPINION/ORDER
LLP were on brief. P.A. were on brief. Used an adhesive containing isocyanates to repair the roof above the store where Varano was working. The district court entered judgment as a matter of law against her on her strict liability failure to warn claim because the court concluded that Jabar was not a
560 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were William H. With her on the brief were Eileen J. This loss was generated by Coltec's selling of high basis stock for a relatively low price. BACKGROUND I In 1996 Coltec was a publicly traded company with numerous subsidiaries. Which were a prerequisite for this type of transaction. Asbestos was widely used in the manufacture of a variety of products. Manufacturers and distributors of asbestos products have faced a flood of claims from workers and other individuals who subsequently suffered from asbestos related diseases. Coltec was at risk from the asbestos problem. Corporate veil piercing claims were not uncommon in asbestos cases. Has admitted that tax avoidance was one of its reasons for doing so. Coltec's first step was to rename one of its dormant subsidiaries. Coltec explicitly admits that Garrison's assumption of the asbestos liabilities was in exchange for the Stemco note. The $375 million amount was calculated to cover the estimated future asbestos liabilities of Garlock.
558 OPINION/ORDER
1993 (
556 OPINION/ORDER
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).1 Google argues that we lack jurisdiction over the preliminary injunction to the extent it enforces unregistered copyrights. Registration is generally a jurisdictional prerequisite to a suit for copyright infringement. As we will further explain below. Are connected to networks known collectively as the
556 00-6135 -- HOLLANDER V. SANDOZ PHARMA CEUTICALS CORP. -- 05/10/2002

It rejected the Hollanders' arguments that it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining claims and that the defendants' removal petition was untimely. The federal district court ruled that the Hollanders' expert testimony regarding the causal connection between Parlodel and intracerebral hemorrhages lacked the necessary reliability and was therefore inadmissible. See Hollander v. (3) the court abused its discretion in ruling that the testimony of their experts was not sufficiently reliable to be admissible. We further hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Hollanders' expert testimony was not sufficiently reliable and that the court did not err in granting summary judgment to Sandoz. We agree with the Hollanders that the federal district court should have dismissed their claim against Sandoz. To be taken in two 2.5 mg doses per day.

Parlodel is manufactured by Sandoz. The drug's active ingredient is bromocriptine mesylate. Approximately 9 million women in the United States have taken it for that purpose. See Siharath v.

556 OPINION/ORDER
The policies were altered over time as to the levels of deductibles for 1) assessed product related injury liability and 2) legal costs associated with litigation stemming from the covered productrelated injuries. The parties have had a long standing disagreement about how they should determine when a particular policy has been triggered by a claim involving a benefits of a double auditing system. It was in a position to act much earlier in order to prevent some of the inconvenience and cost associated with this legal controversy. Paul was liable for failing to adhere to the terms of its policies held by Lincoln Electric. Paul was liable pursuant to
556 OPINION/ORDER
LLC were on brief. Miller were on brief. Alleging that it was a price fixing purchasing pool. OSF was tasked with designing and marketing a UNIX based operating system known as OSF/1 that would become an industry standard for UNIX users. Which essentially offered competing suppliers the opportunity to submit their products to be integrated into the OSF/1 operating system.

556 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were John L. With him on the briefs were Joel I. Were on the brief of certain States as amici curiae. An operating system is. Windows 95 is an operating system that integrates a DOS shell with a graphical user interface. Each operating system's APIs are unique. Install operating systems and other software that they have licensed from vendors such as Microsoft. Marginal production costs are negligible. Most relevant here is s IV(E) of the decree: Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon: (i) the licensing of any other Covered Product. The Internet is a global network that links smaller net works of computers. The World Wide Web (
556 HALE CONTAINER LINE, INC. V. HOUSTON SEA PACKING CO. (4/3/1998, NO. 95-3201)

and the amount of damages it was awarded against Hale.

I. Owner shall have the option of terminating this agreement and Charterer shall forthwith surrender possession of said vessel to Charterer. Owner shall have a lien on all cargoes and subfreights for all charter payments and general averages.
556 OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were John L. With him on the briefs were Joel I. Were on the brief of certain States as amici curiae. An operating system is. Windows 95 is an operating system that integrates a DOS shell with a graphical user interface. Each operating system's APIs are unique. Install operating systems and other software that they have licensed from vendors such as Microsoft. Marginal production costs are negligible. Most relevant here is s IV(E) of the decree: Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon: (i) the licensing of any other Covered Product. The Internet is a global network that links smaller net works of computers. The World Wide Web (
556 HALE CONTAINER LINE, INC. V. HOUSTON SEA PACKING CO. (4/3/1998, NO. 95-3201)

and the amount of damages it was awarded against Hale.

I. Owner shall have the option of terminating this agreement and Charterer shall forthwith surrender possession of said vessel to Charterer. Owner shall have a lien on all cargoes and subfreights for all charter payments and general averages.
556 OPINION/ORDER
That the triangular transactions were often done without the full knowledge of Homestore's auditor. Cautioned that secondary actors were not always free from liability under § 10(b) because they may still be liable as a primary violator. 511 U.S. at 191. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are primary violators under § 10(b) for engaging in a
554 CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (10/2/2000, NO. 97-8838)

Chapman's ADA claims were tried before a jury. Those issues have to do with an employer's ability to select its own criteria for making employment decisions and with the permissibility of using subjective criteria. As we will explain in due course. It turns out that general corporate credibility issue is not presented by the record. While we have the case. We will also use it to decide whether a district court may consider a losing party's financial status in awarding costs to the prevailing party.

554 WOOD V. MORBARK INDUS.

This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Wood v. The district court erred in its admonition to the jury to disregard the testimony concerning subsequent remedial measures that was properly admitted for impeachment purposes. Were using a wood chipper known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/93-3472.opa.html">WOOD V. MORBARK INDUS.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Wood v. The district court erred in its admonition to the jury to disregard the testimony concerning subsequent remedial measures that was properly admitted for impeachment purposes. Were using a wood chipper known as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/97-8838.ma3.html">CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (10/2/2000, NO. 97-8838)<BR></A><BR> Chapman's ADA claims were tried before a jury. Those issues have to do with an employer's ability to select its own criteria for making employment decisions and with the permissibility of using subjective criteria. As we will explain in due course. It turns out that general corporate credibility issue is not presented by the record. While we have the case. We will also use it to decide whether a district court may consider a losing party's financial status in awarding costs to the prevailing party.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="554"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/032977p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Though there were many factual disputes at the trial. The basic circumstances of the case are clear and we set forth the facts in the light most supportive of the district court's result. 1 The origin of the case may be traced to March 30. 000 in United States OPINION OF THE COURT Certain of the various orders and determinations to which we make reference have not been appealed. Berg's principal place of business is in Toronto. At various points in the record reference is made to other Chinese corporate entities related to Huadu. For simplicity's sake we will refer to the entities collectively as Huadu. We also note that Huadu sometimes is referred to as Hua Du. 2 3 2 1 GREENBERG. Berg was in constant contact with Hull regarding the freezer dryers' technical specifications.6 On April 20. Start up and testing of the freeze dryers.7 The freeze dryers were 6 At trial Donald Berggren. So it was a back and forth process of negotiation. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1464.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Michael J. Of counsel was Scott A.M. With him on the brief were Robert J. Of counsel on the brief were Kevin R. Because the evidence does not support the court's finding that the relevant tests put Invitrogen on clear notice that certain products were not covered by the patents used to mark those products. Which was filed on January 13. The '396 application was continued as U.S. The '156 application was divided. The '260 application was continued as U.S. Was again continued as U.S. 260 application was continued as U.S. The claims in all four patents are generally directed to RNase H deficient Reverse Transcriptase ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Apr2002/004323.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the district court's orders. Joan McIlhenny's 1990 Ford Taurus had to have its transmission overhauled at 73. James Dunlap's 1995 Ford Winstar had to have its transmission overhauled at 65. The district court first indicated that Pennsylvania courts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0085p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) the IRS's summons was overbroad in that it sought documents not relevant to the investigation of Johnson. Even if we were to affirm the district court's decision. A protective order should be imposed upon any proprietary materials that Monumental is required to provide to the IRS. These arrangements are often used to disguise tax avoidance schemes. Marien believed that the same types of life insurance products provided by Monumental to Johnson were involved in the case of Neonatology Associates. The Tax Court held that the contributions made by two professional medical corporations into an employee benefits program were disguised taxable dividends and not deductible expenses by the employer. 299 F.3d at 231 33. Employers are not generally prohibited from funding term life insurance policies for their employees and deducting the premiums paid as business expenses. In which the employees are generally the owners. Employers are disguising investments that accumulate cash value as deductible benefit plan expenses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0910p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will vacate the Order of the district court and we will remand the matter for further proceedings. I. Introduction and Factual Background[fn1] AT&T is a long distance telecommunications carrier that. Its rates and practices are governed by tariffs it files with the Federal Communications Commission. Only the reseller is a customer of AT&T. The end users are customers of the reseller and not of AT&T. Appellee Winback is a reseller of 800 inbound telecommunications services and appellee Inga is its president. Hereafter we usually will refer to both simply as Winback. As are other resellers. Winback is both a customer and a competitor of AT&T. Was infringing on AT&T's trademarks and service marks. Falsely representing that it was affiliated with AT&T and passing itself off as AT&T.[fn3] The parties resolved the case by entering into a Consent Final Order and Injunction. Were responsible for any infringing acts.[fn5] Consequently. The Final Order and Injunction was amended to obligate One Stop to serve each of its sales agents with a copy of the Order. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032920p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court granted PPG's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was insufficient proof of an agreement. We will reverse in part. Will & Emery 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York. Will & Emery 18191 Von Karman Avenue Irvine. Molten glass is poured over a bath of higher density liquid. It is polished under controlled temperatures. The glass is fed into an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032920p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The District Court granted PPG's motion for summary judgment on the ground that there was insufficient proof of an agreement. We will reverse in part. Will & Emery 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York. Will & Emery 18191 Von Karman Avenue Irvine. Molten glass is poured over a bath of higher density liquid. It is polished under controlled temperatures. The glass is fed into an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962811.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Only a few days before the GSBCA was to issue a decision on the protest (April 19. Joel Lipkin was the principal negotiator for Zenith. When the Air Force took the position that a Microsoft Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="552"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1595A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Blanco Matos were on brief. On review we agree with Murad's reasoning that it is entitled to a new trial vis … vis IRG. That Irvine's individual claim should have been dismissed as a matter of law. BACKGROUND Murad is a stateside manufacturer of skin care products. Irvine testified at trial that there was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1020p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Are Settlement Classes Cognizable Under Rule 23? 50 E. Are the Rule 23(a) and (b) Findings Required for Settlement Classes? IS THE SETTLEMENT CLASS PROPER HERE? 69 A. Were There Adequate Findings Under Rule 23(a)? 69 B. Could the Class Requisites Have Been Met On The Current Record? 70 1. Is the Settlement Fair. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approving the settlement of a large class action following its certification of a so called settlement class. The class members are purchasers. It was subsequently determined. May have had a design defect in their location of the fuel tank. Many of the class members are individual owners (i.e. While others are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="550"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-4147.htm">02-4147 -- WANKIER V. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORP. -- 12/23/2003<BR></A><BR> Which is governed by Utah law. Wankier was the operator of an electric pallet jack. Her leg was caught between the conveyor and the walkie rider. Which is used to regulate the power and direction of the machine. Is slipped from the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-4818.man.html">HARRIS V. IVAX CORP. (7/27/1999, NO. 98-4818)<BR></A><BR> Background</CENTER> </P> <P> According to the complaint our only source of the facts the defendant Ivax Corporation is a manufacturer of generic drugs. Ivax was profitable in 1995. $104 million of which was a reduction in the carrying value of the goodwill ascribed to certain of Ivax's businesses. There are two theories of liability: first. That Ivax's economic projections were fraudulent. The plaintiffs argue that the district court should have granted them leave to amend the complaint. Corporations and individual defendants may avoid liability for forward looking statements that prove false if the statement is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-4818.man.html">HARRIS V. IVAX CORP. (7/27/1999, NO. 98-4818)<BR></A><BR> Background</CENTER> </P> <P> According to the complaint our only source of the facts the defendant Ivax Corporation is a manufacturer of generic drugs. Ivax was profitable in 1995. $104 million of which was a reduction in the carrying value of the goodwill ascribed to certain of Ivax's businesses. There are two theories of liability: first. That Ivax's economic projections were fraudulent. The plaintiffs argue that the district court should have granted them leave to amend the complaint. Corporations and individual defendants may avoid liability for forward looking statements that prove false if the statement is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3361_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> LaGrou was convicted of three felony counts: the knowing improper storage of poultry products. LaGrou was sentenced to a five year term of probation. I. Background The conditions at LaGrou's cold storage warehouse at 2101 Pershing Road in Chicago were enough to turn even the most enthusiastic meat loving carnivore into a vegetarian. The Pershing Road warehouse was a cold storage facility that stored raw. The record is unclear as to how long the rodent problems existed. It is clear that LaGrou was aware of the problem in 1999. Smith (a codefendant who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges) was hired as the manager of the Pershing Road warehouse. In 2001 LaGrou employees were catching more rats and finding more rodent droppings. Rodent damaged product was coming from all over the warehouse. LaGrou did not conduct any tests to make sure that other boxes that appeared okay were not similarly contaminated by rodents. To report back about the number of rats they were removing from traps each day. Stewart did not give Smith authorization to implement these recommendations because he concluded that the project was too expensive. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011502.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Which contends that it has not engaged in the misconduct attributed to the major tobacco manufacturers and was not sued by any of the States. Asserts that it will be unjustly burdened by the requirements of the Master Settlement Agreement and the legislation that Virginia enacted pursuant to the agreement. Which was known as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1965OPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Brody</SPAN> were on briefs for appellants.<SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/93-3555.op2.html">MOSHER V. SPEEDSTAR DIV. OF AMCA INT'L, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mosher v. Because the issues presented by this appeal involved questions of state law implicating substantial public policy concerns and because there appeared to be conflicting controlling precedents in the divisions of the Florida courts that were dispositive of these issues. Still operate to preserve products liability claims that accrued during the statute of repose's period of unconstitutionality?<p> <p> (2) If the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/024582p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Class members were entitled to opt out at various stages. Those who chose to opt out initially were freed to pursue their remedies elsewhere. Those who did not opt out at the beginning were afforded opportunities to opt out </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/11/00-6072.htm">00-6072 -- BLACK V. M & W GEAR CO. -- 11/07/2001<BR></A><BR> Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984818.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND According to the complaint our only source of the facts the defendant Ivax Corporation is a manufacturer of generic drugs. Ivax was profitable in 1995. The full text of the release is found in Appendix I to this opinion. The full text of such a release would not be part of the record under review for a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) unless it was attached to the complaint. A document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered. Provided that its contents are not in dispute. $104 million of which was a reduction in the carrying value of the goodwill ascribed to certain of Ivax's businesses. There are two theories of liability: first. That Ivax's economic projections were fraudulent. The plaintiffs argue that the district court should have granted them leave to amend the complaint. moreover. Which are [sic ] not subject to material dispute. The usual rules for considering 12(b)(6) motions are thus bent to permit consideration of an allegedly fraudulent statement in its context. 3 Appendix II contains the full text of this release. 15 U.S.C. § 78u 5(c). 15 U.S.C. § 78u 4(b). 4 5 Both the defendants' motion to dismiss. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="548"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/93-3555.op2.html">MOSHER V. SPEEDSTAR DIV. OF AMCA INT'L, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mosher v. Because the issues presented by this appeal involved questions of state law implicating substantial public policy concerns and because there appeared to be conflicting controlling precedents in the divisions of the Florida courts that were dispositive of these issues. Still operate to preserve products liability claims that accrued during the statute of repose's period of unconstitutionality?<p> <p> (2) If the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/003056.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs have frequently sought damages from affiliated corporations. Plaintiffs with claims arising from non WARN Act sources of law against debt laden or bankrupt corporations have occasionally attempted to sue the corporations' major secured lenders. On the theory that the lenders have exercised such control over the corporations that veil piercing is appr opriate. The question before us is whether the for mer employees of Component Technology (CompTech). Have set forth sufficient evidence to cr eate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether . Requires us to consider not only the prerequisites for parent/subsidiary liability in the WARN Act context (as will be shown. That 2 jurisprudence is apposite here). Courts have been extr emely reluctant to hold lenders liable for their borrowers' actions. Some version of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CF7CCDB0A79D0EF3882573330054DD2A/$file/0515189.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: These are consolidated appeals in two diversity actions brought under Nevada law. Where the meaning is not clear from the context. The dealership repays GMAC the portion of the loan attributable to an individual vehicle when that vehicle is sold or leased. GMAC enters into a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="546"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7EF5B069AA425BC38825730D00579E8C/$file/0515170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Perfect 10 alleges that numerous websites based in several countries have stolen its proprietary images. The Visa and MasterCard entities are associations of member banks that issue credit cards to consumers. FDC's stated reason for the termination is that the percentage of Perfect 10's customers who later disputed the charges attributed to them (the chargeback rate) exceeded contractual limits. Perfect 10 claims these chargeback rates were temporarily and substantially inflated because Perfect 10 was the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200705/04-1102a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With them on the briefs were Joshua B. With them on the briefs were Albert S. With her on the brief were R. With him on the brief were Christopher J. Weber were on the brief of Shipper Intervenors in support of respondent with respect to arguments of SFPP. This case is the latest chapter in a long running dispute over SFPP's tariffs. The shipper petitioners are BP West Coast Products. (3) the Commission erroneously held that certain shippers were not entitled to reparations for rates charged on SFPP's East Line after August 1. SFPP and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines have intervened on behalf of the Commission with respect to these issues. 4 SFPP and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines have also crosspetitioned for review of the three challenged orders. The shippers have intervened on behalf of the Commission regarding these issues. We hold that the Commission's income tax allowance policy was not arbitrary or capricious or contrary to law. We also hold that FERC's interpretation of the Energy Policy Act was reasonable. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/993406.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> David Oddi was catastrophically injured in a one vehicle accident when the truck he was driving struck a guardrail and a bridge abutment. Ford and Grumman removed the actions to the district court where they were consolidated.1 Ford and 1. Jurisdiction in the district court was premised upon diversity of citizenship. 28 U. Oddi is a citizen of Pennsylvania. Ford is a Delaware corporation and Grumman is a New York corporation. 2 Grumman eventually moved for summary judgment based upon their contention that Oddi could not establish a prima facie case because his proposed expert testimony failed to satisfy the requirements of Daubert v. We will affirm. Oddi was driving a bread truck owned and maintained by Continental Baking Company. He was proceeding northbound at exit 14 of Interstate 79 near Pittsburgh. Oddi's legs were crushed so badly by the force of the accident that they both had to be amputated. Oddi's left arm was also permanently injured. The truck was a 1976 special order Ford M 5000 Stripped Chassis that Continental had ordered through a Ford dealership for use as a bread delivery truck. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1105p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to decide whether the district court erred: (1) in allowing plaintiffs to introduce evidence concerning a history of tractor rollovers when the accident at issue did not involve a tractor rollover. Because the district court did err in admitting irrelevant evidence and because that evidentiary error was not harmless. We will vacate the judgment of the district court and remand to the district court for retrial. Plaintiff David Barker ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012419.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Since this is an interlocutory appeal. Filed even before the parties have completed discovery. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/97-1328.htm">97-1328 -- U.S. V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 12/21/1999<BR></A><BR> 10<sup> 5</sup> cancer risk level was arbitrary and capricious. (2) the district court erred when it ruled that the EPA's failure to amend the Record of Decision for Operable Unit I when it encountered the unexpected rock content in the sludge was arbitrary and capricious. (3) even if the actions regarding the Record of Decision for Operable Unit I were arbitrary and capricious. The district court erred in not requiring BN to prove that the cost would not have been incurred in any event. <p> BN cross appeals. We conclude that the EPA's remediation decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and. Is not arbitrary and capricious. Performance or cost of the remedial plan was involved. The EPA was not required to amend the remediation plan in order to use the settling tank or to amend the plan. We agree with the district court that the EPA actions were arbitrary and capricious for failing to amend the plan. <p> Third. We hold that the district court erred in refusing to require BN to demonstrate that the EPA's errors resulted in expenditures in excess of those that would have occurred in the absence of the errors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043716p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At the center of this securities fraud action is Suprema Specialties. Those individuals have admitted that a number of Suprema's public statements regarding its finances and the nature of its business were untrue. The plaintiffs appellants here are two institutional investors. Several investment firms that served as underwriters in two public stock offerings through which plaintiffs claim to have acquired Suprema stock. Among the important issues presented on appeal is whether the District Court properly applied the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTM5NTgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-3958-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Martin Kosmynka was loading an all terrain vehicle ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/07/021997P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in granting JAML in favor of defendant because the rubber mixer that injured them was a dangerous chattel instead of a fixture on defendant's real property. The district court erred in holding that Missouri premises liability law applied and that their recovery was limited to workers' compensation benefits. Jurisdiction in the district court was proper based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Jurisdiction in this court is proper based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. FACTS The facts and procedural history are largely drawn from the order of the district court. Plaintiffs were employees of Topeka Machinery Exchange ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19984818.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND According to the complaint our only source of the facts the defendant Ivax Corporation is a manufacturer of generic drugs. Ivax was profitable in 1995. The full text of the release is found in Appendix I to this opinion. P. 12(b)(6) unless it was attached to the complaint. A document central to the complaint that the defense appends to its motion to dismiss is also properly considered. Provided that its contents are not in dispute. Which are [sic] not subject to material dispute. The usual rules for considering 12(b)(6) motions are thus bent to permit consideration of an allegedly fraudulent statement in its context. 3 2 Appendix II contains the full text of this release. 2 million of which was a reduction in the carrying value of the goodwill ascribed to certain of Ivax's businesses. There are two theories of liability: first. That Ivax's economic projections were fraudulent. The plaintiffs argue that the district court should have granted them leave to amend the complaint. Corporations and individual defendants may avoid liability for forward looking statements that prove false if the statement is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-1637.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for appellees. Grumman's most intriguing argument presented below as both a defense and a counterclaim is that DG illegally maintained its monopoly in the market for service of DG computers by unilaterally refusing to license ADEX to Grumman and other competitors. The antitrust claims are intriguing because they present a curious conflict. Must tolerate short term harm to the competitive process when such harm is caused by the otherwise lawful exercise of an economically potent </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E850B862A18465C788256EA600528742/$file/0256509.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The other to dismiss the complaint against the remaining defendants because the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the Sherman Antitrust Act's per se prohibition against price fixing is applicable to the economic arrangements between the defendants. Shell Oil Co. were once fierce competitors in the national oil and gasoline markets. Both Shell and Texaco sensed intensified competition in the downstream operations of their industry they similarly believed that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032346p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also decide that prejudgment interest and the cost of an experimental treatment process are reasonable in a contribution suit under CERCLA section 113. 42 U.S.C. § 9613. The waste was deposited in several lagoons on the site. It was stored in tanks and from there taken to ocean disposal facilities. Which are classified as hazardous materials. Most of the claims were settled. Rexon's stock had been owned by several parent companies.1 Relevant to the case at hand was the purchase by defendant Pullman Corporation in October of 1984 and the sale of all of the stock to a new parent corporation in April 1989. The new parent corporation continued operations using the Rexon name until Rexon was dissolved on June 30. We will use the name of Rexon. To designate the manufacturing entity found to have contributed to the pollution. Little Falls became Rexon's direct shareholder. were served with process on April 17. The critical dispute in that phase of the case was the interpretation of a provision in the 1989 stock purchase agreement assigning responsibility for environmental claims against Pullman and Rexon. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="536"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/75C640A55315A44E88256F850079CCD4/$file/0217048.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Died when her Ford Expedition patrol vehicle rolled over while she was driving on a dirt road within the Navajo Nation. The road is a reservation road. There is no federal or state right of way. The road is not located on non Indian fee land. The cause of the rollover accident is disputed. Ford asserts that Todecheene was not wearing a seatbelt. Counter that the Ford Expedition was defective and the seatbelt was not working properly. Was defective and unreasonably dangerous in design or manufacture. Financed the purchase of the Expedition Because our resolution of the subject matter jurisdiction question is outcome determinative. The district court also held that Ford was not required to exhaust tribal court remedies before challenging the tribal court's jurisdiction in federal court. Because jurisdiction was plainly lacking and exhaustion would serve only to delay the proceedings. STANDARDS OF REVIEW Whether a tribal court properly exercised its jurisdiction is The Appellants did not argue this theory of subject matter jurisdiction in their Opening Briefs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1595.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Blanco Matos were on brief. On review we agree with Murad's reasoning that both causes of action should have been dismissed as a matter of law. There is no need to address the other issues raised by Murad. BACKGROUND Murad is a stateside manufacturer of skin care products. Irvine testified at trial that there was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan97/95-1464.wpd.html">YODER V. HONEYWELL INC.<BR></A><BR> Plaintiffs assert that summary judgment was improper because material issues of fact remain as to whether (1) Bull was the alter ego or instru mentality of its parent Honeywell. (2) Honeywell was a manufacturer or apparent manufacturer under Colorado law and Restatement (Second) of Torts 400. Honeywell was the only defendant at that time. In plaintiffs' amended complaint they alleged that Honeywell and/or Bull manufactured the keyboard equipment and asserted that Bull and its predecessors were alter egos or instrumentalities of Honeywell. The court first found that Honeywell was not liable to plaintiffs as a manufacturer of the keyboards. Based on [a former Honeywell em ployee's] examination of the keyboards he determined that the keyboards were not manufactured by Honeywell. Plaintiffs have made no showing that a genuine issue of fact exists that Honeywell manufactured. Finding that plaintiffs' claim was time barred. II Plaintiffs first assert that summary judgment(1) in favor of Honeywell was improper. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2004/031286p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The parties have indicated that the dispute between Houbigant and Fireman's Fund has been settled. That appeal is moot. 1 I. The Insureds were granted a license to manufacture and sell certain Houbigant fragrances and use the trademarks associated with them. The Insureds were required to manufacture. (4) indicating that the Chantilly fragrance was produced by the Insureds. The Insureds were covered by two policies issued by Federal: (1) the Commercial General Liability policy ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001766R1.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We certify two questions that are set forth herein to the South Carolina Supreme Court. I. Nature of the Controversy This is an action by an insurance company for declaratory relief in an insurance coverage dispute. Relevant Facts and Procedural History The facts relevant to the certified questions presented are not in dispute. Golden Hills Builders is a general contractor in the business of building residential homes. Golden Hills Builders was insured pursuant to a standard commercial general liability policy (the Policy) issued by the Insurance Company of North America. Century is the successor of CCI Insurance Company. Which was the successor of the Insurance Company of North America. The primary cause of action is for defective construction of the subject home. The Stoltzes have sought punitive damages and attorneys' fees under a cause of action for unfair trade practices under the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. Section I.A.1.a. of the Policy provides that Century </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0085n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That enabled Standex to have its own employee act as salesman. Claiming that Standex breached the agreement by failing to pay commissions due on products that were shipped after the termination date pursuant to purchase orders that were booked before the termination date (count one). Urban argued that if it were found not entitled to commissions on the disputed shipments under the agreement. It was entitled to compensation in quantum meruit to avoid the unjust enrichment of Standex (count two). We have uncontested appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Urban was an independent sales representative enterprise that sold electronic components. Standex is a manufacturer of electronic components and assemblies for use in the auto. When a customer decides that it is going to buy parts from Standex. The customer issues documentation indicating that Standex was awarded business for a given part. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1472.html">UNITHERM FOOD SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL. V. SWIFT-ECKRICH<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Greg A. Walters</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Also on the brief was <u>Dennis D. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Leigh O. Of counsel on the brief were <u>John P. plaintiffs ) that ConAgra was liable for attempted monopolization and for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. Properly found the 027 Patent invalid and unenforceable for reasons of both prior use and prior sale under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The district court was also correct. Announced that it was making the 027 Patent and corresponding patents that may issue available for license at a royalty rate of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="534"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410688.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue is whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the Schering Plough settlements unreasonably restrain trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 45(c). The Upsher Settlement Schering Plough ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0226n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kessler was struck by a forklift driven by a Visteon employee. Owed Kessler a duty of care to operate its machinery in a reasonably safe manner and 2) Kessler has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the operation of a forklift in proximity to pedestrians on the loading dock that day is an open and obvious activity that presents special aspects of danger under Michigan law. I Visteon is in the business of assembling automotive components. It was part of the Ford Corporation. Kessler was injured when he approached an operating powered material handling vehicle ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0125p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Based upon an alleged violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) after she was fired in October of 2002. Concluding that Edgar was not entitled to relief under the FMLA because she was unable to return to work after the 12 week period of statutory leave had ended. Edgar argues that her ability to resume her duties is a disputed question of fact that the district court improperly resolved in JAC's favor. A job that she held until the position was eliminated in 2001. Deciding to continue working because she </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0084p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community is a federally recognized Indian tribe with approximately 3. The Community is the successor in interest to the L'Anse and Ontonagon bands of Chippewa Indians. The TPTA states that its intent is to levy the tobacco tax against the consumers of tobacco products. Although it is the licensee's responsibility to collect and account for the tax. The state can tax sales made by a tribe to individuals who are not tribal members. A state like Michigan is faced with a somewhat complicated collection scheme when. The Community was party to such an agreement with the state from 1977 until the state terminated it in 1997. Revised agreements were reached with eight of the tribes. The State will now require all wholesalers and/or unclassified acquirers to collect these taxes at the point of sale even where the retail purchaser is an Indian Tribe or tribal member. All packs of cigarettes sold at retail from within Indian Country will bear a special stamp applied by the wholesaler to clearly indicate that tax has been paid. . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0182p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Kessler was struck by a forklift driven by a Visteon employee. The * This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0192p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Apparently she was right to be concerned. It seems that BBs are attracted to children's eyes as politicians are attracted to television cameras. The manufacturer of the air rifle which was used to shoot him. Alleging that the air rifle was defectively designed. The air rifle was kept in a locked gun cabinet. Nicholas took the safety lock off the gun and checked to see if the air rifle was empty. He pulled the bolt back and tilted the gun towards himself to see if there was a BB inside the rifle. He believed at this point that the rifle was empty. The result was painful and permanent injury to Aaron Swix and virtually complete loss of sight in his left eye. The plaintiffs argued that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1634.html">CREO PRODUCTS, INC V. PRESSTEK<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6049.htm">01-6049 -- SALLY BEAUTY CO. INC. V. BEAUTYCO INC. -- 09/03/2002<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff Marianna is a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="527"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1994/94a0828p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was bound by a promise to pay Beazer all or part of Beazer's response costs on a Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act. The magistrate judge had concluded that Mead was a responsible party for purposes of CERCLA but that the asset purchase agreement ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200513834.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bodie is as follows. When he was diagnosed with severe spinal and cervical stenosis. After Bodie's neurosurgeon determined that there was little more that could be done to improve Bodie's condition. Mangieri gave him a prescription for 30 milligrams of OxyContin to help with his back pain.1 OxyContin is a prescription drug manufactured by Purdue. The drug's sole active ingredient is oxycodone. An opioid that is. A synthetic opiate similar to other opium derivatives such as morphine.2 The drug was approved by the Food There is some confusion over whether Dr. Mangieri testified­and the medical records admitted into evidence reflect­that it was actually Dr. Fernandez saw him are incorrect. We will assume that Dr. Doctors have prescribed it to treat chronic back and neck pain similar to the kind suffered by Bodie. OxyContin is listed by the FDA as a Schedule II narcotic. OxyContin is tightly regulated. Mangieri and Fernandez were licensed to prescribe OxyContin to their patients. When Bodie was first prescribed OxyContin by Dr. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0282p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Packaged them for the retail consumer. 3M is a manufacturing powerhouse. It was NicSand's only competing supplier of DIY retail automotive coated abrasives and now. It is a monopolist of what NicSand alleges to be a distinct economic market. The wholesale and retail markets for DIY retail automotive abrasives are small and highly concentrated. Although the retailers were not contractually bound to stay with a particular supplier. The gravamen of the Amended Complaint is that 3M monopolized and attempted to monopolize the abrasives market through the exclusivity provisions of the contracts that the discounts accompanied. It is possible to draw certain conclusions from the allegations. The complaint notes that sales by the six largest retailers accounted for 80% of the retail market and that 3M executed exclusive contracts with four leaving only Wal Mart (which was subject to the wrap around program) and Pep Boys as possible distributors for NicSand's products. This change would have increased 3M's (retail) market share from 20% to 73% (assuming that NicSand and 3M split the Pep Boys's business evenly). </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/99-1033.htm">99-1033 -- HIDALGO V. FAGEN INC. -- 03/20/2000<BR></A><BR> The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Fagen on the claims that it was strictly liable for injuries caused by the conveyor. Requiring him to prove that the parts in question were defective when they left KWS's control. Hidalgo contends that a new trial is warranted because there was jury tampering. Was sufficient to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding a design defect in the screw conveyor system supplied by KWS. Impermissibly requiring him to demonstrate that the product was defective when it left KWS's control. <p> We review summary judgment rulings de novo. <u>See</u> <u>Southwestern Bell Wireless. Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="525"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-8022.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for Philip Morris appellants. Were on brief for United States Tobacco Company appellants. Were on brief for appellees. The specific plaintiffs appellants are Philip Morris Incorporated. The specific defendants appellees are L. We consider the statutes' respective texts along with the relevant historical and legislative contexts in which they were enacted. Normally we consider the record evidence with respect to each motion separately </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0959p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also hold that Michael's complaint to the extent that it relies on fraud perpetrated by Shiley on the FDA is pre empted. While we will affirm the district court's pre emption rulings as to Michael's negligence. We will reverse the district court's summary judgment to the extent that it entered judgment against Michael on her express warranty and fraud claims. Which was designed and manufactured by Shiley Inc. B. The Shiley valve was one of the first medical devices to be approved under the 1976 Medical Device Amendments to the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act of 1938 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002387.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. The facts relevant to our inquiry are fully described in the ruling of the district court. Central to the controversy in this litigation is the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="523"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1642.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Davis and McGovern & Associates were on brief for appellant. Crisafulli were on brief for appellees Fleet National Bank and Fleet Credit Corp. With whom McGair & McGair was on brief for appellees C & J Jewelry Co. The facts are related in the light most favorable to appellant Peters. At 6 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2E1F799C53A4857688256F97005A7959/$file/0316100.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Summary judgment in favor of Philip Morris was granted. B. District Court Proceedings This action was timely and properly removed from state to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. On grounds that (1) the strict product liability claim was preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965. (2) the fraudulent concealment claim was preempted by the same federal statute. Evidence was lacking that the decedent would have acted differently if Philip Morris had disclosed material information concerning the health effects of smoking. (3) the fraud claim was not preempted under federal law but evidence was absent that the decedent saw. (4) the conspiracy claim necessarily failed because it was a derivative of other underlying claims. A grant of summary judgment is appropriate only where the moving party has demonstrated that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Material facts are those which might affect the outcome of the suit. An issue is genuine if a reasonable trier of fact could find in favor of the nonmoving party. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1838p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Waldorf suffered injuries rendering him a quadriplegic in a motor vehicle accident in 1982 when he was 24 years old. Waldorf appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial on damages and the refusal of the district court to grant him an additur as he contends that the verdict was inadequate and against the weight of the evidence. That we do not have jurisdiction over Waldorf 's appeal. We hold that we have jurisdiction over this appeal and cross appeal and will affirm the district court's orders. 4 This appeal is the third occasion that this case has been before us during the over 13 years that it has been litigated in the federal courts. Waldorf was involved in a two car accident at the four way intersection of Monroe Avenue and North 14th Street in the Borough. He was a passenger in a van driven by Kenneth C. Was riding on a seat that was not bolted down. Instead was secured only by elastic straps. Waldorf was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. Corporal Victor Smith of the Kenilworth Police Department discovered at approximately 11:00 p.m. that the red light was not working. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="521"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTQ3MDYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-4706-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant counterclaimant appellee National Service Industries is not liable for the actions of Serv All Uniform Rental Corp. It has not established that there was a de facto merger. The question before us is whether federal common law for purposes of determining corporate successor liability under CERCLA incorporates state law ­ in this case. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A9AA31F4AAD1F6888256AEF005A9B4A/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although much of what happened here was characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/961559P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Plaintiffs are individual investors3 who purchased Gateway 2000. (Gateway) stock soon after the stock was publicly offered. Magill was an active judge at the time this case was submitted and assumed senior status on April 1. Before the opinion was filed. The Plaintiffs are Ari Parnes. This motion was denied as moot by the district court when it dismissed their complaint. The Plaintiffs' claims against the underwriters were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on January 17. Is a South Dakota based manufacturer and direct marketer of personal computers. Gateway was initially created as a Subchapter S corporation. The bulk of Gateway's stock was held by Theodore Waite and his brother Norman. The Company's operating results for the fourth quarter of 1993 are expected to reflect the growth historically experienced by the Company in its fourth quarters. The PC industry is characterized by short product life cycles resulting from rapid changes in technology and consumer preference and declining product prices. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2314.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cavanagh & Cooney were on brief for defendants. Decof & Grimm were on brief for plaintiff. Arthur LaPlante was rendered quadriplegic from a fall sustained while riding an all terrain vehicle (ATV) designed. This amount was reduced to $8. If Honda is found liable on retrial. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. The course of Arthur LaPlante's life was dramatically and irreversibly altered. This ATV is a three wheeled motorized vehicle intended for off road use. Was the third to ride after Kallhoff and Leib. When plaintiff was unable to negotiate a left hand turn onto a twelve foot wide dirt road. The trial was bifurcated so that the issue of punitive damages could be tried after the issues of liability and compensatory damages. The jury also found that plaintiff was comparatively negligent. Or damage was a subsequent alteration or modification. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1912.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McGlone</U> were on brief for Plaintiff. Martin PLLC</U> were on brief for Defendant. The jury also found that the club was 35% comparatively negligent. 12% of which was attributable to the club's breach of duty of ordinary care and 23% of which was attributable to the club's failure to install sprinklers in and around the sauna room. The sauna room was constructed entirely of wood. A metal box placed in a corner of the room with heating elements that were designed to be covered by a mound of rocks. There were two wooden railings around the heater to prevent patrons of the club from accidentally coming into contact with the heater itself. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2038.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The district court concluded that the principles of direct and derivative liability under CERCLA articulated in <U>Bestfoods</U> would not have altered that original judgment. <U>United States</U> v. <U>Kayser Roth Corp.</U>. Stamina Mills was a wholly owned subsidiary of Kayser Roth.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="519"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F8B414C76D42798E88256E5A00707D26/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although much of what happened here was characterized as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7165a.html">BROWN ANTHONY ET AL V. PRO FTBL INC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1020.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> TMJI is a Colorado corporation that manufactures prosthetic total and partial temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants for use in patients suffering from TMJ disorders. They have filed one brief as the CIGNA appellees. Aetna states that it will not cover either the total or partial TMJ implants manufactured by TMJI. In a similar bulletin CIGNA states that it will not cover TMJI's partial joint device. The district court granted the motions on the ground that the bulletins were protected statements of opinion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. The total joint prosthesis is available in three sizes (for both the right and left sides of the jaw) and can also be custom made. The partial joint <hr> prosthesis is available in 44 premade sizes (for both sides of the jaw). TMJI is the only manufacturer of a partial joint prosthesis. 000 of TMJI's devices have been implanted in patients. 40% of which have been partial joint prostheses. Clinical studies have shown that the partial joint implants </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041890p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY United Fruit was started by Scolio's father in 1914. Scolio became involved with the company in 1949 and was a partner by 1960. Was responsible for paying bills and calculating the employees' pay. 1. Our recitation of the facts is drawn from the opinion of the District Court. Not only was Scolio a shareholder and employee of United Fruit. 1997 was the latest date on which 4 payment was due for any of the Weis Buy invoices. Payments were due within ten days of the date of each invoice. 1998 was the latest date on which payment was due on any of the Brigiotta's invoices. Sellers' claims were determined to be qualified valid PACA claims by the Bankruptcy Court and each received a partial distribution from United Fruit's remaining assets. A bench trial was held on March 19. We have jurisdiction over the final decision of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because we conclude that Sellers' claims were not timely. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/01/011611P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Appellant argues that the district court: (1) erred by finding that Appellant was liable as a successor ininterest. Was obligated to indemnify Hallmark for expenses incurred in defending the Reithmeyer suit. Appellant's counsel informed Hallmark that it was tendering the defense of the claim to its insurance carrier. (3) the settlement agreement was reasonable. To ensure </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061031p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The distinction between a loan and an advance payment for the purpose of whether the funds received are to be treated as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/95-9602.opa.html">WESTCHESTER SPECIALTY INS. SERV. V. U.S. FIRE INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Westchester Specialty Ins. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This diversity case is governed by Georgia law<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/95-9602.opa.html">WESTCHESTER SPECIALTY INS. SERV. V. U.S. FIRE INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Westchester Specialty Ins. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> This diversity case is governed by Georgia law<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/981762.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal of the District Court's dismissal under Fed. These rulings are now challenged on cross appeal. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court on all issues. The cases were consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. 000 individual plaintiffs claim to have suffered physical injuries caused by defective orthopedic bone screw devices affixed to the pedicles of their spines during spinal fusion surgery. Which are intended to stabilize the spine and achieve fusion of the vertebrae. Consist of rods or plates that are screwed into the vertical axis of the lumbar spine. Plaintiffs have undergone surgery to have the devices removed. There are two types of omni actions. 7 The Plaintiffs' Legal Committee ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1997/97a1694p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Since we have jurisdiction. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. ALT Corp. and AWIC were in the business of using and promoting Wolman Salts for the treatment and preservation of wood. Alcoa and CBI were heavily involved in recommending and implementing the merger. All of ALT's capital stock was redeemed and canceled and ALT was soon dissolved. Environmental damage was discovered at numerous sites where ALT had operated wood treatment plants between 1934 and 1954. Beazer notified Alcoa that it considered Alcoa a potentially responsible party for the costs Beazer was incurring at the ALT sites. Finding that Alcoa was not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/986502.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BreathAsure stipulated that scientific evidence established that its </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/032954P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> A user cannot visually check if the hinges are locked. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 1 causes a person who sells a product </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2244.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C. were on brief for appellant. Carens & DeGiacomo were on brief for appellee. Circuit Judge. is whether the bankruptcy court properly enjoined a state law based </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/04/04-1098.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA0MTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0412-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must decide whether Section 360k(a) preempts common law tort claims regarding medical devices that have entered the market pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1236.html">INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT V. TCI CABLEVISION OF CA<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/April1995/95a1018p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This asbestos related personal injury action was tried to a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We are called on to determine whether the district court abused its discretion by denying defendant's challenge for cause of two jurors who allegedly evidenced bias against the defense. We are called upon to determine whether the district court committed an error of law by: (1) allowing plaintiff to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of an out of court expert witness from an unrelated state court action. We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages and liability.[fn1] Since it is likely that the hearsay issues and the issue of delay damages may arise again during the new trial. Did not err in ruling that delay damages would be permitted when delay was caused by a judicial stay for which the plaintiff was not responsible. Including Owens Corning Fiberglas Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/94-4018.html">BRADSHAW V. UNITED STATES<BR></A><BR> Jurisdiction in this court is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1291.2 I Plaintiff Appellee J. Larry Bradshaw was president of Heritage Building Products (HBP) during the last quarter of 1985 and the first three quarters of 1986. HBP was wholly owned by Heritage Corporation. Bradshaw was president of Heritage Corporation and owned 13% of its stock. Bradshaw was also on the board of directors of both corporations. We entered an order directing the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing whether we have jurisdiction </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/04/97-4050.htm">97-4050 -- NOVELL INC. V. FEDERAL INSURANCE CO. -- 04/14/1998<BR></A><BR> Michael Ross is the sole proprietor of Enhancement Software. StampIt was designed to work as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/08/991424P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. The Marvin companies are Minnesota and Tennessee corporations that manufacture and sell custom made wooden doors. Which is effective in preventing premature wood rot and decay caused by moisture penetration. The central allegation is that PPG's products did not meet Marvin's expectations in preventing wood rot and deterioration in Marvin's doors and windows. There are thirteen legal theories in the Amended Complaint: (I) contract. The procedural background of the case is somewhat complicated. There are three central issues in this appeal. We must decide whether Marvin's contract claims are barred by the governing statute of limitations. We decide whether Marvin is protected by the state statutes on which it bases its statutory fraud claims. This case is governed by state substantive law. Where the state law is uncertain. Our task 3 is to predict how the state supreme court would resolve the issue if faced with it. We believe there is a jury question as to the existence of a future performance warranty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/05/982171P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bankhead argues on appeal that judgment as a matter of law is appropriate. The Cottrell CS 11 is a multiple level trailer that can transport eleven vehicles at a time. The particular placement of vehicles in the numbered positions was left to the discretion of the driver. The Cottrell CS 11 was modified by Bankhead. Its length was extended by four and one half feet. The extension was accomplished by cutting the trailer virtually in half. A four and one half foot section was then inserted in the middle. There were supporting posts on each side of the trailer near the front of the number one position. If a vehicle is loaded further forward in the number one position. The original posts are more to the rear in relationship to the vehicle. Steel plates were then added. Sandage was loading vehicles onto the modified CS 11. Sandage's expert calculated that there were six and one quarter inches available for egress. The lower back injury eventually required four surgeries and he is no longer able to work as a car hauler. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-6209.htm">98-6209 -- TOSCO CORP. V. KOCH INDUSTRIES INC. -- 05/02/2000<BR></A><BR> The district court declared Koch responsible for its fair share (fifteen percent) of all past and future response costs and damages Tosco incurred or will incur while investigating and remediating environmental contamination at the abandoned Duncan. Resource Recovery Company and Energy Realty International are the current owners of the Refinery. <p> <u>Refinery Operations</u> <p> Koch. Koch's asphalt plant was shutdown after Sunray built the coker in 1954. <p> Refinery operations. These areas are probable sources of underground contamination. That further investigation and remedial action was necessary and requested that Tosco and Sun conduct such activity jointly. Total costs are likely to exceed $2. Resource Recovery and Energy Realty were tried to the court in February 1998. Koch was the only defendant that appeared and defended these remaining claims. Energy Realty either no longer exist or are insolvent. <p> In March 1998. Tosco is entitled to recover response costs from any person who is liable or potentially liable under CERCLA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/98-6209a.htm">98-6209A -- TOSCO CORPORATION V. KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC. -- 05/26/2000<BR></A><BR> On the relative period during which the Refinery was operated while under Koch's ownership. <p> Upon consideration. An amended opinion is attached to this order. <p> <strong>Entered by the Court:</strong> <p> <strong> WADE BRORBY</strong> <p> <strong> </strong>United States Circuit Judge <p> <strong><img src= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1995/95a1113p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This asbestos related personal injury action was tried to a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We are called on to determine whether: (1) the district court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's challenge for cause of two jurors who allegedly evidenced bias against the defense. (2) the defendant has waived any claim that there was a violation of its statutory right to exercise peremptory challenges. (3) a denial or impairment of the exercise of peremptory challenges occurs if the defendant uses one or more challenges to remove jurors who should have been removed for cause. (4) a per se reversal is the appropriate remedy for such impairment or whether the defendant must also make a showing of prejudice. We are called upon to determine whether the district court committed an error of law by: (1) allowing plaintiff to introduce into evidence the prior testimony of an out of court expert witness from an unrelated state court action. We will reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages and liability.[fn1] Since it is likely that the hearsay issues and the issue of delay damages may arise again during the new trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/03/022833P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. This case is before us for the second time. Marvin is a family owned company that manufactures. The genesis of this lawsuit was Marvin's use. Marvin had used Penta products successfully for years until environmental concerns were raised about the active ingredient. The four month jury trial was bifurcated. The jury found that PPG had given Marvin a warranty of future performance and that such warranty formed part of the basis of the bargain between the parties and was incorporated into their agreement. The jury found the warranty was breached and awarded damages: $53.6 million for out of pocket costs. A </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/05/97-6265.htm">97-6265 -- SHAW V. AAA ENGINEERING & DRAFTING INC. -- 05/18/2000<BR></A><BR> INTRODUCTION</strong> <p> One of these consolidated cases is a <em>qui tam</em> . Plaintiff Debra Shaw is the relator. Shaw asserted she was terminated in retaliation for reporting Defendants' fraudulent activities to U.S. government officials at TAFB. <p> Defendants AAA Engineering &. 2) whether the district court erroneously denied Defendants' Rule 50 motions on Shaw's FCA claim that she was terminated for her actions in furtherance of the FCA. Defendant AAA was awarded a government contract (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200212409.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the entry of a default was an abuse of discretion. Extra contractual damages that are not available under ERISA. The plaintiffs are unable to establish liability under ERISA because Mass Mutual simply is not a fiduciary for any purpose related to the misconduct they allege.1 Indeed. We do not address Mass Mutual's additional arguments. 2 1 that this was never really an ERISA case at all. That it never should have been litigated in federal court. That the plaintiffs' motion to remand should have been granted at the outset. Our statement of the case is. Cotton and Eickhoff were executive officers of BEI Holdings. The other former co defendants in this case were not its legal agents. Rather were simply independent agents authorized to sell Mass Mutual products. We assume that they were in fact Mass Mutual agents. 3 2 on a permanent whole life insurance policy issued on the employee. The cash value of each whole life policy would continue to grow until it would cover the annual premium payments that is. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="509"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0481p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that the forklift was unreasonably dangerous due to a defective design. Factual background The underlying facts are undisputed. Brown is an experienced forklift operator who worked as a material handler at Quebecor's facility in Covington. Which is a rear entry. Brown was driving his forklift along an east west corridor at the Quebecor plant when he collided with a forklift operated by Charles Gause. Who was traveling south on a corridor that intersected the one traveled by Brown. That the brakes were not working properly at the time of the accident. Which the district court construed as a motion for partial summary judgment because Brown's defective brakes claim was not specifically addressed. Who is both a lawyer and an industrial engineer. Testified by deposition that the forklift was unreasonably dangerous because Raymond could have identified the problem of one forklift's wheel well intruding into the operator compartment of another and could have </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-3268.htm">02-3268 -- MESSER V. AMWAY CORP. -- 08/10/2004<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1989.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.C.</SPAN> were on brief for appellant.</P> <P> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062661p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because Feesers failed to show that it was in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200610657.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND Nimbus is a North Carolina corporation that manufactures specialized electronic equipment. Was an Alabama corporation incorporated in January 2002. Inc. was an Alabama corporation incorporated in June 2003. EZ LED LLC was an Alabama limited liability company organized in June 2003. Whelchel and Tarasevich were the sole participants in EZ LED LLC. Tarasevich was also a business advisor to SunnData and Geer. Geer was a creditor of SunnData and EZ LED LLC. SunnData was producing LEDs and attempting to gain a foothold in the LED industry. Which was in the business of outsourcing for specialized electronics manufacturing. Whelchel and Weir held discussions regarding the assembly of various colored LED products that were already on the market. SunnData believed that the key to success in the LED industry was to develop a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A4C3E50E8C15444C88256CA9006081F9/$file/0055306.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The question we address here is to what extent. Homedics was sued in federal district court for infringing the design patents of its competitor Nikken. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Nikken appears to allege that Homedics directly infringed its patent by offering to sell infringing products through advertising.1 To show Offering to sell an infringing product is. It alleged that Homedics' sale of its products was severely hurting its business. This action was based on similar activity as Nikken I. The complaint sought damages for breach of contract and a declaration that Homedics was entitled to a defense of the Nikken action by the insurance companies. The case was dismissed against all defendants except ACE on October 20. The court preliminarily found that ACE was obligated under its insurance policy to pay for the defense of Nikken I. Homedics brought a second action against ACE seeking a declaration that ACE was obligated to defend Homedics in Nikken II. Order declaring that ACE was obligated to defend Homedics in Nikken I. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/812A6DE6572287DB882571CA0049087B/$file/0455844.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Is a summary judgment determination of abandonment appropriate when the record supports an inference that the trademark holder a small. The answer is no. Are sufficient to defeat a claim of abandonment. His business had enjoyed some modest success but later was set back by dwindling prospects. That Mallet's use of the mark while depleting his inventory was neither bona fide nor in the ordinary course of trade. The mark was primarily designed by Mallett's friend Tom Robbins. Sales were promising. His business was building up a reputation for making quality goods. The 1996 inventory order was not depleted until 2002. Mallett was selling backpacks at a steep discount. Although his arrangement with Koko Island was subject to a non competition agreement. Documented sales of Pelican Mark goods were made during this time. Mallett also claims that many other undocumented cash transactions were made as well.1 Although Mallett's enterprise was Mallett declared that he can document sales of Pelican Mark products between 1995 and 2001: 1995. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="507"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1244.html">UNOVA, INC. V. ACER INC., ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Alan E. Orseck</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>    </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Frederick A. California.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Bruce R. Argued for defendant appellee Hewlett Packard Company.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Elliot Brown</u>. Section 4.1 provides that Unova will not sue Compaq or its parents for infringement of the smart battery patents by any Compaq Products . Section 4.3 grants Compaq and its parents a non exclusive license for Compaq Products under the smart battery patents.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The settlement agreement is governed by California law.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text indent:.5in. Is not restricted to Compaq branded products.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Id.</u> at 7 10.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Third. Retaining jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorney fees </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="505"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0213p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court dismissed Plaintiff's action on the ground that Plaintiff was not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1687_039.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs have accused Tellabs and its executives of engaging in a scheme to deceive the investing public about the true value of Tellabs's stock. The release proclaimed that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/993684P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The name of this entity was changed to Crompton Co./Cie. 1 * * Washington Legal Foundation. That was originally developed by the federal government in the 1930s as a munitions factory. In the late 1940s the site was sold to a now defunct company called Reasor Hill Corporation (Reasor Hill). That is now viewed as hazardous to humans. Other wastes were stored in numerous drums stacked in a field on the site. Hercules did not learn of the Agent Orange is made from a mixture of 2. Dioxin was subsequently linked to cancer. By then there were nearly 29. Contamination was also found in other areas of the site. In grounds adjacent to the site. 7 Uniroyal was a customer of Vertac's and purchased 2. 5 T that was to be shipped back to Uniroyal. This arrangement (a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1512.html">CELERITAS V. ROCKWELL<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1097.html">U.S. V. CHERRY HILL TEXTILES, INC.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/08/032651P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Doe Jr. is a hemophiliac who has received various treatments for the disease. All of which turn on whether the Does have presented evidence sufficient to create a genuine question of fact regarding who caused Doe Jr. to be infected with HIV. The first issue is whether. The Does have presented enough evidence that any single defendant was the but for cause of Doe Jr.'s infection. The second issue is whether. The Plaintiffs have presented enough evidence that the four defendants together are the only ones who could be responsible for Doe Jr.'s 2 infection. If the four defendants are the only possible tortfeasors. The third issue is whether the Does can sustain a civil conspiracy cause of action against the defendants. If the Does have created a genuine question of fact regarding causation. Jr. was born on September 24. There are various ways to treat Hemophilia A. Cryoprecipitate is the precipitate that forms when plasma is frozen and then thawed. It is rich in Factor VIII. The cryoprecipitate used in Iowa at the time was locally procured from single donors. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962165.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because there are genuine issues of material fact. The Ford E 150 contained a shortened engine compartment which was situated between the driver and passenger seats. The plastic connectors were used as attach2 ment mechanisms along the fuel lines. Metal </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200514720.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As the case presents issues that have not been directly addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. We believe the issues are appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court and defer our decision in this case pending the certification of questions to the Supreme Court of Florida. Was withdrawing money from an ATM. Anderson was vicariously liable for Garcia's acts and omissions and also alleged that Anderson. Anderson was the named insured under a homeowner's policy issued by Federal Insurance Company. She qualifies as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept2000/995184.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The individual defendants are: (1) John R. I. Because this is an appeal from the District Court's grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Is engaged in the research. Pondimin was marketed together with another drug. Pondimin was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1973. Redux was recommended for approval by an FDA Advisory Committee in November 1995 and approved by the FDA in 1996. AHP represented to the FDA that these symptoms were reactions to the drugs and were not caused by any underlying heart condition. AHP's announcement similarly stated that the company was investigating </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/01-3335.htm">01-3335 -- HINER V. DEERE AND CO. INC. -- 08/20/2003<BR></A><BR> Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the tractor and loader were defective in design and that Deere failed to issue adequate warnings concerning risks posed by the equipment. While he was operating a Deere 4020 tractor. The tractor was equipped with a Deere Model 48 front end loader. Plaintiff was using the loader to carry a large round hay bale. While his attention was diverted. The accident rendered him paraplegic. <p> The type of hay bale that fell on Plaintiff a large round bale was not introduced into the farming industry until the fall of 1972 or the spring of 1973. Because injuries resulting from large round bale accidents are especially severe. Deere and other manufacturers have responded to the danger of large round bale roll down accidents by offering for sale a number of safety devices which reduce the risk of injury. One such safety feature is a roll over protection system (ROPS) to which a canopy can be attached. Other safety devices include bale grapples and bale spears specialized equipment used to secure large round bales on front end loaders. <p> Although Plaintiff knew about the hazards of roll down accidents and was familiar with the available safety devices. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="503"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3DE9EB115BC271B988256B50005EDCD6/$file/0050656.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question presented is whether this provision requires proof of materiality. BACKGROUND Jack Watkins is the president and majority owner of CapTab Nutritional Formulating and Manufacturing. Which was one of approximately six ingredients in the product. Which was one of approximately eight ingredients in Nuerotein and one of approximately fifteen ingredients in Energy. Moving to exclude evidence that the substitutions were not mate1269 rial. Watkins responded by arguing that proof of materiality was required for conviction under the felony misbranding provisions of § 333(a)(2). The plea was conditioned upon the preservation of Watkins' right to appeal. We have consolidated their appeals. Is whether materiality constitutes an element of felony misbranding under the FDCA. Cosmetic Act is a public welfare statute that imposes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july95/94-2516.opa.html">LOHR V. MEDTRONIC, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lohr v. We hold that Appellants' negligent manufacture and failure to warn claims are preempted and affirm their dismissal. We also hold that Appellants' negligent design and strict liability claims are not preempted and therefore reverse their dismissal.<p> I. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Because an understanding of the MDA's regulatory scheme is necessary to resolve the question of preemption. We begin with a brief outline of the Act.<p> A. <i>The Regulatory Scheme</i><p> <p> The market for medical devices was largely unregulated at the national level until the MDA's passage in 1976. The text of the MDA reveals two competing congressional purposes relevant to this case:<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july95/94-2516.opa.html">LOHR V. MEDTRONIC, INC.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lohr v. We hold that Appellants' negligent manufacture and failure to warn claims are preempted and affirm their dismissal. We also hold that Appellants' negligent design and strict liability claims are not preempted and therefore reverse their dismissal.<p> I. BACKGROUND<p> <p> Because an understanding of the MDA's regulatory scheme is necessary to resolve the question of preemption. We begin with a brief outline of the Act.<p> A. <i>The Regulatory Scheme</i><p> <p> The market for medical devices was largely unregulated at the national level until the MDA's passage in 1976. The text of the MDA reveals two competing congressional purposes relevant to this case:<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0706p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from summary judgment granted by the district court in favor of the defendant. The product at issue here is an anchoring system made by Lucker for the off shore oil drilling industry and called a Lateral Mooring System ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033847p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006) This case was argued before the panel of Judges Fuentes. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). ** * Effective May 31. Circuit Judge Plaintiffs are New Jersey blueberry farmers who filed suit against a pesticide company for damages to their crops based on 3 theories of products liability. 2) based on its holding that the remaining plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Federal Insecticide. The principal issue on appeal is whether Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by FIFRA. Fraud are not preempted because those claims do not impose labeling requirements in addition to or different from those required by FIFRA. The farmers allege that tank mixing is a common and well known practice among virtually all farmers that dates back to the introduction of pesticides. The company distributed advertising literature claiming that its new product was safer and more effective than AG 500 or 50 WP. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1994/94a0922p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is the latest appellate chapter in a lengthy nationwide class action in which more than 30. 000 school districts have sought relief from former manufacturers of asbestos containing building products ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1780p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That caused damage to its surrounding engine was separate property from the engine or was merely a component of the engine. 2) whether East River bars a tort claim for post sale duty to warn under a negligence theory when the damage is purely economic. 3) whether East River bars a tort claim for negligent repair when the damage is purely economic. The district court held 1) that the rod was not separate property from the engine. 2) that even when the injury is only economic. There is a post sale duty to warn claim if a defendant manufacturer had actual knowledge that the 2 product was defective. That GE did not have actual knowledge of the defective part prior to Sea Land's injury. 3) that East River bars a tort claim for negligent repair when the damage is purely economic. I. Facts Sea Land is a bareboat charterer of many vessels including the Sea Land Enterprise. The Enterprise was constructed in 1980. The Enterprise's SSDG is powered by a GE diesel engine. The diesel engine is made up of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041979p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="501"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031457.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. We remand to the district court so that it may consider the scope of the pollution exclusion clause as well as the other exclusions which Auto Owners argued are applicable in its declaratory judgment action. The AutoOwners policy requires the insurer to pay those sums Whitewood is legally obligated to pay as a result of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0101p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As the issues raised in this appeal are matters of first impression among the courts of appeals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/93opinions/93-1275.html">EXXON CHEMICAL V. LUBRIZOL CORP.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="498"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/73E06C2AB382AF63882571D900545890/$file/0435370.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendants Appellees. *A complete list of the appellants and appellees with district court case numbers is set forth in a separate. Certain appellants on that list were dismissed in this court's orders filed on January 14. The names of some of the dismissed appellants who were lead plaintiffs in multi plaintiff cases have been retained on the caption for reference purposes only. 10293 10294 IN RE PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE LESLIE ACKEL. Were randomly assigned to two panels. For which separate unpublished dispositions have been filed. 1 All judges participated in deciding. II and III which are common to all appeals. Judges Nelson and Leavy participated in deciding and sign an opinion only with respect to those appeals assigned to the panel of which they were respectively a member. Circuit Judge: These appeals are from judgments of dismissal entered in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding for failure to comply with case management orders. The orders were entered with the agreement of all sides that they were necessary to move hundreds of cases and thousands of plaintiffs toward resolution on the merits. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1247p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/33DAA86C85AF72D08825723E005EE5E6/$file/0455396.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: First Alliance Mortgage Company was driven into bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation by well publicized and justified allegations of fraudulent lending practices. One is a class action on behalf of First Alliance's borrowers seeking to impose liability for aiding and abetting the fraudulent scheme engaged in by First Alliance. (This group of unsecured creditors is essentially the same as the group of borrowers asserting their claims of fraud against First Alliance. As is explained in more detail below. These two separate actions were handled together by the same district court and have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. First Alliance Mortgage Company First Alliance was a lender in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E9CE41F2E90CC8D788256EF400822372/$file/0355894.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the defendants are not liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and affirm the district court's partial grant of summary judgment. This appeal is the latest reprise of that recurring conflict. The plaintiffs in the consolidated cases ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200403/03-1008a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200314720.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because we find that this case turns on an important question of state law for which there is no controlling precedent. We defer our decision pending certification of the question to the Supreme Court of Florida. 2 BACKGROUND Taurus is in the business of manufacturing. Government municipalities have sued Taurus and other handgun manufacturers seeking compensation for expenses allegedly incurred as a result of gun violence in their communities. The municipalities claim they have spent substantial sums of money toward police operations. Insurance Providers have the duty to defend Taurus against lawsuits seeking damages for bodily injury. The Federal Insurance Company policy1 defines a products completed operations hazard as follows: [A]ll bodily injury and property damage occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of your product or your work except: a. products that are still in your physical possession. Or 3. a person or organization whose business or assets you have acquired. The question presented in this appeal is whether the products completed operations hazard exclusion applies to the lawsuits pending against Taurus. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="496"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1181.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dearborn & Willey were on brief. King and Rudman & Winchell were on brief. The doweling machine was manufactured in 1973 by Hawker Manufacturing Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962468.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Rail Link is a railroad company that provides switching operations at various manufacturing plants. Rail Link is also the parent of two wholly owned subsidiary corporations that operate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/09/963555P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This was the first time the gun had been fired. The cartridge exploded while the chamber was open. Was temporarily blinded. Chronister was not wearing any sort of hearing protection at the time. Chronister was later examined by an ear nose throat physician. That his hearing is still within a normal range. Which is a painful hypersensitivy to noise. Both of these conditions are probably permanent. Alleging that the Bryco 59 was defectively designed and that Bryco failed to warn of the risk that the gun might misfire with the chamber open. Chronister argued that the Bryco 59 was defective because. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="494"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/06/011898P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a dispute between several insurers and an insured. WalMart and National Union argued that they were protected from liability by an indemnity clause in the vendor agreement between Wal Mart and its supplier. That Wal Mart's insurance with National Union was underlying insurance under RLI's policy and must be exhausted before RLI is obligated as an excess insurer. They argue that the result of the decision is to make a covered insured (Wal Mart) liable to its own insurer (RLI). They also assert that the District Court's decision will result in unnecessary and circular litigation. Wherein RLI will ultimately still be held liable for the entire settlement because of Cheyenne's promise to indemnify Wal Mart. Cheyenne was also required to demonstrate proof of at least $2 million of liability insurance. Cheyenne was covered by two insurance companies. Paul was its primary insurer. RLI was an excess insurer beyond the St. Wal Mart was a covered insured under both the St. Allegedly was defective. This </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/09/01-6067.htm">01-6067 -- TELECOR COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. -- 09/10/2002<BR></A><BR> At issue is Southwestern Bell's domination of the Oklahoma pay phone market. The plaintiffs are nine independent pay phone service providers whose efforts to compete with Southwestern Bell succeeded only in whittling down the latter's market share to roughly 80 percent after two years of competition. We nevertheless believe that the challenged rulings were proper. Subject to certain regulatory requirements. <p> Pay phone service providers ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0300p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Although the United States was entitled as a matter of course in the interpleader action to be discharged of all liability related to the distribution of the isotopes. Because the United States was not similarly entitled to be discharged of all other liability related to the isotopes. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police received a request from the Russian government for help locating certain non radioactive isotopes that allegedly had been stolen from Russia and that were believed to have been transported to Canada. High Technology was in lawful possession of the isotopes as a consignee of Horos. That the sale was therefore invalid. That Russia was entitled to possession of the isotopes. Canada claimed that it was pursuing criminal charges against Alexander Rodionov ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3837_022.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1 was defective. Fitzgerald and her mother were caring for ten other children. Fitzgerald's home was a Lil' Napper. The Lil' Napper swing came with a harness restraint system which was comprised of an inch wide strap that extended from the rear of the swing through two slots or channels near the top of the back of the seat. At the end of the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/99opinions/99-1087.html">U. S. TEST, INC. V. N D E ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.<BR></A><BR> That the patents were invalid and unenforceable. <U>See</U> <U>id.</U> at ¶¶ . Test was liable for contributory infringement of the '453 patent. <U>See</U> Am. UCIC was obligated to defend U.S. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2403.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Character generation is the process of placing text over video and audio. Only portions of the 1995 agreement are relevant to this case. Are compatible only with a video component called a PCI bus. The programming language for Macintosh and Windows machines was similarly incompatible. It soon became clear that the personal computing market was going the way of Windows. That all other intellectual property rights not licensed by the agreement were deemed held exclusively by MSI. Then [Media 100] shall have a paid up license to (1) modify the CG Option 2.0 source code. This new product line was named </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/09/063668P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While Robinson was operating the press in December 2001. The press was a Kluge 6 Roller Automatic Platen Printing Press. A mechanical process in which paper is fed by a mechanical arm onto one large surface. An operator was required to use the press manually during what is described as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/96-6410a.htm">96-6410A -- GAINES-TABB V. ICI EXPLOSIVES, USA, INC. -- 11/09/1998<BR></A><BR> That defendants' conduct was the proximate cause of their injuries. They cannot state a claim for negligence <u>per se</u> under one of the state statutes at issue because ammonium nitrate is not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/07/01-4229.htm">01-4229 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 07/08/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/11/96-6410.htm">96-6410 -- GAINES-TABB V. ICI EXPLOSIVES -- 11/09/1998<BR></A><BR> That defendants' conduct was the proximate cause of their injuries. They cannot state a claim for negligence <u>per se</u> under one of the state statutes at issue because ammonium nitrate is not an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053730p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Three issues are presented for decision following the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the excess insurer. Did the District Court err in holding that New York law governs this dispute as the state in which the insurance 3 contract was issued and delivered. We conclude that although Pennsylvania's choice of law rules have abandoned the lex loci doctrine. Was unloading bags at the Pittsburgh International Airport. He was severely injured and is now a quadriplegic requiring constant round the clock care. Which was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Dyson KissnerMoran Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="492"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/01-4229.htm">01-4229 -- U.S. V. BROWN -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199915021.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is evidenced by the division of the Alabama Supreme Court that is reflected in a multitude of separate concurring and dissenting opinions and statements. We are grateful to the Alabama Supreme Court for the valuable guidance that it has provided us both in the decision it issued in this case and also in the other decision it released on the same day in a similar tobacco case where related state law issues had been certified by another panel of this Court. A brief background statement and discussion of some general matters will be helpful. I. BACKGROUND Because we are reviewing a dismissal pursuant to Fed. Those alleged facts are that Carolyn Watts Spain started smoking cigarettes as a teenager in 1962. She became addicted to nicotine early on and was unaware at the time that she was becoming addicted. Smoking was the proximate cause of her lung cancer. Which was diagnosed on August 15. This means that for a period of two years after her death Spain may bring whatever claims his wife could have brought on the date of her death. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C2EFBED4DA930CDA8825706E004F3CC1/$file/0355957.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will & Emery. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1164p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the judgment and orders of the district court. We therefore will refer to the plaintiffs singularly as Duquesne. It is beyond doubt that during these negotiations the parties had sophisticated technical. The steam generators for the first unit were installed in 1972. Those for the second unit were installed in 1981. Duquesne discovered corrosion and cracking in the generators' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1998/98a1826p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> INTRODUCTION: The revolutionary changes in the health care field over the past decade have spawned many novel market arrangements. Perhaps the most significant development is the ascendency of managed care driven health maintenance organizations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="490"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-3200.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Advantage is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kansas. Advantage was covered under a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Maryland (the Policy). We [Maryland] will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/apr97/95-1085.wpd.html">OJA V. HOWMEDICA, INC.<BR></A><BR> The section headings are incorrectly labeled. A corrected version of the opinion is attached for your convenience. (2) the jury's finding of negligent failure to warn is inconsistent with its verdict for Howmedica on the strict liability and negligence claims. (4) punitive damages cannot be awarded as a matter of law because the evidence was insufficient to show that Howmedica acted wantonly or recklessly. Because we conclude that the jury's finding of negligent failure to warn is irreconcilably inconsistent with its verdict for Howmedica on the strict liability claim. BACKGROUND The Porous Coated Anatomic One Piece Acetabular Component hip ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0364p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. Was enacted in 1998 and proscribes the sale of products that may be used to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/495AB3DC0228E24688256C090059D5AF/$file/0015166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/495ab3dc0228e24688256c090059d5af/$FILE/0015166.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is withdrawn and replaced by the amended opinion filed concurrently with this order. The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/38BB76995113D9EE88256BB30081AEB2/$file/0015166.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Berkla is a visual artist from Chico. That contained images of plants and natural objects that were sprayed like 1 As noted in Part I.B. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-7072a.html">MICHAEL H. HOLLAND V. WILLIAMS MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY<BR></A><BR> <span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/07/98-7190.htm">98-7190 -- CHOATE V. CHAMPION HOME BUILDERS CO. -- 07/25/2000<BR></A><BR> Or failure to warn that the hard wired smoke detector in Duane Choate's home would not work if there was a loss of power.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0901p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Association ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/38bb76995113d9ee88256bb30081aeb2/$FILE/0015166.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction over these multiple appeals from the amended judgment and two post judgment orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Factual Background Berkla is a visual artist from Chico. That contained images of plants and natural objects that were sprayed like 1 As noted in Part I.B. The jury's award of punitive damages was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="488"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200107/00-7072a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Stanley F. With him on the brief were Susan F. For the six miners whose benefits are involved here. It is undisputed that To ney's Branch Coal Company was that operator. Toney's Branch is bankrupt. The sole issue before us is whether Augusta and Williams Mountain can on that account be held liable as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="486"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982071.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Two actions filed by the families of fishing boat crewmen who were lost at sea and one limitation of liability action filed by the boat's owner with respect to the other two actions. We are required to enforce the mechanism specified by the Shipowner's Limitations of Liability Act that all other actions against the owner </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1323p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lejeune was injured while working on a piece of machinery Appellees had repaired. He was responsible for checking the oil and lubrication of various machines. Are rotated in order to transport hot steel slabs from one processing machine to another. Believing a certain table was deactivated. The cylinders were activated. LeJeune was caught in the gap between them. His injuries were serious and extensive. General Electric employees were on site for eight months repairing equipment. If there is no false conflict. Does not recognize strict products liability based on the rationale that such claims are preempted by the Uniform Commercial Code. Delaware's interests would be impaired if Pennsylvania law were applied. A false conflict exists </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/941882.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging a carpet manufactured by Shaw and sold by Sherwin Williams was defective. Anderson on the grounds that her testimony was inadmissible under F.R.E. 702 and the reliability prong of the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert v. The court held as well that plaintiffs had failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that the carpet was defective and granted summary judgment in defendants' favor. Plaintiffs' complaint was originally filed in the Superior Court Division of Wilson County. The action is currently before the court on defendants' motion for summary judgment and their related motion to strike affidavits and testimony of plaintiffs' experts filed in response to defendants' motion for summary judgment. North Carolina store sold </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1262.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Associates P.C.</SPAN> was on brief. Cavanaugh</SPAN> were on brief. Dicker LLP</SPAN> were on brief. P.C.</SPAN> were on brief. This personal injury case stems from a horrific accident in which plaintiff appellant Daniel Smith was badly burned while attempting to light a propane water heater in his basement. The district court granted summary judgment to all three defendants.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-6157.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff appellant Jason Durham was severely burned after becoming entangled in linoleum webbing being drawn onto a hot oil drum. That the base coating line is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CDCC3B9E1F72B2D488256E5A00707AE0/$file/9915895.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm because we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that the California Supreme Court will hold that an employer can assert an affirmative defense under certain circumstances to a claim that a supervisor has sexually harassed the plaintiff in violation of FEHA. I Kohler was employed as a project coordinator with InterTel from August 18. InterTel is a single source provider of telephone. Kohler was responsible for programming telephone systems at customer sites and training customers on how to use the Inter Tel telephone system. Saying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="484"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AD352B54CA55A99688256A2B005CE63C/$file/9915895.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm because we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that the California Supreme Court will hold that an employer can assert an affirmative defense under certain circumstances to a claim that a supervisor has sexually harassed the plaintiff in violation of FEHA. I Kohler was employed as a project coordinator with InterTel from August 18. InterTel is a single source provider of telephone. Kohler was responsible for programming telephone systems at customer sites and training customers on how to use the Inter Tel telephone system. Saying </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug99/99-8053.man.html">ALLISON V. MCGHAN MED. CORP. (8/18/1999, NO. 99-8053)<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the district court's <EM>Daubert</EM> rulings were correct. The left implant was replaced in December 1980 by a model also manufactured by 3M/McGhan. (Appellant's Br. at 3.)</P> <P> In 1986 Allison was diagnosed with Hashimoto's thyroiditis (diffuse infiltration of the thyroid gland with white blood cells. Allison was diagnosed with Type I diabetes mellitus.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug99/99-8053.man.html">ALLISON V. MCGHAN MED. CORP. (8/18/1999, NO. 99-8053)<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the district court's <EM>Daubert</EM> rulings were correct. The left implant was replaced in December 1980 by a model also manufactured by 3M/McGhan. (Appellant's Br. at 3.)</P> <P> In 1986 Allison was diagnosed with Hashimoto's thyroiditis (diffuse infiltration of the thyroid gland with white blood cells. Allison was diagnosed with Type I diabetes mellitus.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B2202939BD4801128825717800776566/$file/0550112.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case and was on the briefs for the defendant appellant. Argued the case and was on the briefs for the plaintiff appellee. Were on the briefs for the plaintiff appellee. Is amended as follows: On slip opinion page 3929. Beginning with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-8053.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Manufactured and sold fruit flavored water beverages. 7 Up (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Believed Geyser's price increase for its concentrates was unreasonable. Who were eventually added as plaintiffs. 7 Up never notified American of any mediation. <hr> implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and theft of trade secrets. 1 Jt. That </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011254.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Were intended to grant Big Red an exclusive right to distribute Davines' hair care products within designated territories of the United States. Stat. § 75 4 (1999) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1995/95a1205p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case presents the question whether under New Jersey law a casino patron may recover from a casino for gambling losses caused by the casino's conduct in serving alcoholic beverages to the patron and allowing the patron to continue to gamble after it becomes obvious that the patron is intoxicated. That while he gambled he was served free alcoholic beverages until he became intoxicated. The appeals were consolidated. Our task in this appeal is to predict whether the Supreme Court of New Jersey would recognize claims such as those asserted by the plaintiff. For neither the Supreme Court of New Jersey nor the Appellate Division has addressed the question that is now before us or any closely related question. Because the question is both difficult and important. Therefore we are relegated to predicting what the Supreme Court of New Jersey would do if it were confronted with this question.[fn2] While we are required to venture this prediction and while we recognize the need to issue a published opinion for the guidance of the district courts in the circuit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="482"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/08/02-4149.htm">02-4149 -- SKULL VALLEY BAND OF GOSHUTE INDIANS V. NIELSON -- 08/04/2004<BR></A><BR> Appeal the district court's ruling that the state's statutes regulating the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel are preempted by federal law. <u>See</u> <u>Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians v. The Utah officials argue that the district court should not have reached the merits of this dispute because (1) the plaintiffs who challenge the statutes </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C0F66373782583AF88256DFD00800C5E/$file/0016532.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court determined that Bumper was infringing Earthquake's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-2146_019.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lost one leg and suffered a serious injury to the other when a load of steel sheets that he was unloading from a boxcar fell on him from the crane that was lifting the sheets out of the boxcar. Further ruling that if this was wrong the defendant was entitled to a new trial because the jury had been confused by irrelevant evidence and had ignored critical instructions. Is actually quite simple. There was no basis for the entry of judgment for the defendant. Built into the plant was a very old crane. They would have noticed. Was that when a boxcar was being unloaded underneath the section of the bridge to which the cab was attached. There was only a foot or two of clearance between the rim of the boxcar and the cab overhead. No. 04 2146 3 The renovation undertaken by Konecranes did not involve changing the physical structure that we have described. The most significant alteration was to substitute for the controls in the operator's cab a hand held remote control device with which the operator would operate the crane from ground level. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/043233P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was severely injured by steam and scalding water from a boiler. The boiler was in northern Minnesota at a pool jointly operated by the City of Crookston ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-3262.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> He was 14 or 15 years old. Burton did not go to physicians for check ups and claimed to have never been sick. It was not until the summer of 1993. His treating physician informed him that his circulation problems were caused by his cigarette smoking and advised him to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/98-5367.man.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. JOE'S STONE CRAB (8/4/2000, NO. 98-5367)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/98-5367.man.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. JOE'S STONE CRAB (8/4/2000, NO. 98-5367)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/022018.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that the software had substantial </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="480"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/00-3170.htm">00-3170 -- BIOCORE INC. V. KHOSROWSHAHI -- 11/04/2003<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/97-5801.man.html">GOODLIN V. MEDTRONIC, INC. (2/18/1999, NO. 97-5801)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that her Medtronic cardiac pacemaker lead was defective in a way that gave rise to two causes of action under Florida common law. The pacemaker lead is a wire that transmits the heartbeat steadying electrical impulse from the pulse generator to the heart. The MDA classifies devices that either </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/023659p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We also decide that because substantial portions of Title VII are governed by laches. Plaintiff was employed by defendant Correctional Services. From 1991 until she was discharged in 1996. Correctional was a subchapter S corporation engaged in the business of supplying medical services to incarcerated inmates in several states. Specifically mentioned were discrimination claims brought by the plaintiff and two other individuals. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0406p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that GenCorp was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/97-5801.man.html">GOODLIN V. MEDTRONIC, INC. (2/18/1999, NO. 97-5801)<BR></A><BR> Alleging that her Medtronic cardiac pacemaker lead was defective in a way that gave rise to two causes of action under Florida common law. The pacemaker lead is a wire that transmits the heartbeat steadying electrical impulse from the pulse generator to the heart. The MDA classifies devices that either </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="478"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214828.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The tort claims were dismissed on the basis that Florida's economic loss rule bars the claims. A mechanic must graduate from a certified aviation maintenance technical school (or have equivalent practical experience) and must pass a written test on the construction and maintenance of aircraft. Practices prescribed in the aircraft's maintenance manual and perform the maintenance in such a manner that the condition of the aircraft will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition. Etc. is returned to service. When the next maintenance is scheduled. Because these claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Pursuant to a contract to which appellants are not parties. American's mechanics certified in the Aircraft's logbook that the work was done in accordance with the Aircraft's maintenance manual and FAA regulations.3 Profile purchased the Aircraft subsequent to American's November 1996 maintenance and inspection. The Aircraft was severely damaged when the right main landing gear failed to extend during a landing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1800.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Associates</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="476"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-3159.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is not a suit for divorce) started off on a very bad foot. With the appellant certifying in its statement of jurisdiction that it was appealing from a final judgment and the appellee certifying in its statement of jurisdiction that the appellant's statement was complete and correct. In fact the judgment order stated merely that summary judgment was being granted for the plaintiff. Without specifying the amount of damages that was being ordered. Such a judgment is nonfinal and therefore (with immaterial excep 2 No. 02 3159 tions) unappealable. Worse was to come. The parties as we said have the same name. The plaintiff is a California corporation and the defendant a Korean corporation. The briefs suggest that the only relation that has ever existed between them was that J USA was the U.S. distributor of J Korea's products. We discovered at argument that when the suit was filed. J USA was a subsidiary of J Korea. Though it was later sold. A suit by a subsidiary against its parent is sufficiently outré to warrant mention by the parties. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/971710P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Entered into a conditional settlement agreement in the underlying state court wrongful death action in which a stipulated judgment was entered in the amount of $1. Century contends that its policy did not provide insurance for the accident because the tractor and trailer at the time was engaged in intrastate commerce. Which was limited exclusively to interstate commerce. J&T would contact each of the river terminals to determine which was offering the highest price for grain. The final destination was of no concern to him. Port Bunge ships over 99% of the corn it receives out of state by river barge.1 Once corn is delivered to the Bunge terminal. Its connection to the farmer is severed. Incoming shipments are commingled and the fungible nature of corn makes it impossible to connect any particular shipment of corn to any individual farmer. Carlson was killed in the collision. Bunge purchases corn by way of cash contracts for future delivery which provide that the farmer will ship a certain number of bushels of the commodity within a certain time frame and will be compensated at a predetermined price. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199805/96-7030b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on the brief for amicus curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We granted en banc review on the question whether the standard of evidence for punitive dam ages under Title VII is. We further hold that no evidence of such behavior was shown at trial in this case. Thus affirm the district court on the issue of punitive damages. * * * ADA is a Chicago based professional organization with an office in Washington. Both Kolstad and Spangler are lawyers. (There is no evidence that the job has not in fact included those elements.). In October 1992 Wheat approved a performance evaluation of Spangler in which Spangler stated that one of his objectives for 1993 was to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0123p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Mistake or deception. 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (emphasis added).4 The federal cause of action for dilution is found in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). We hold that the district court's dismissal of Kellogg's dilution claims was improper. Because we hold that Kellogg's infringement claim is not in fact barred by acquiescence. We also hold that the district court's dismissal of Kellogg's bad faith infringement claim was improper. Opining that the cartoon tiger was too whimsical and. 000 of these gas stations were owned and operated by independent distributors ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2002/00-16460.opn.html">MARIS DISTRIB. CO. V. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. (8/19/2002, NO. 00-16460)<BR></A><BR> Such that there was the potential for genuine anticompetitive effects on competition. We conclude that the district court's actions were proper. Each with an assigned territory.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2002/00-16460.opn.html">MARIS DISTRIB. CO. V. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. (8/19/2002, NO. 00-16460)<BR></A><BR> Such that there was the potential for genuine anticompetitive effects on competition. We conclude that the district court's actions were proper. Each with an assigned territory.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200016460.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Such that there was the potential for genuine anticompetitive effects on competition. We conclude that the district court's actions were proper. Maris was one of these distributors from 1968 1997 and was Anheuser3 Busch's exclusive distributor for the territory covering Gainesville and Ocala. The relationship between Anheuser Busch and each of its distributors is governed by a written contract referred to as the Equity Agreement. The Equity Agreement was amended to include a provision that precluded any public ownership (either through sale to a publiclyowned company or via a public offering of stock) of distributorships. It is this provision that is the subject of the instant lawsuit. Maris did not object to the amendment when the provision was added in 1969. The operative agreement between Maris and Anheuser Busch at the time this lawsuit was filed was the 1982 Equity Agreement. Paragraph 4(i) of which provided: Under no circumstances shall Wholesaler or any owner of Wholesaler have the right to transfer any ownership interest in the business of Wholesaler if such transfer would result in Wholesaler being owned in 4 whole or in part. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="474"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AF382EF9114B17E68825702900801123/$file/0135807.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge: This matter is before us to review the Alaska state law questions presented by the parties to this dispute.1 This appeal In its notice of removal. Is an entity subject to liability under Alaska Statute ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1996/96a1425p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was sued by the United States under CERCLA for the costs of cleaning up the site. On the ground that Dowel was a prior owner </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200410160.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This appeal arises from the products liability and toxic trespass claims of nine individuals who allege they were exposed to a virulent substance used as a pesticide in Florida. Because the requisite proof of causation was lacking without the expert testimony. A Mediterranean fruit fly ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-5076.htm">02-5076 -- GREEN COUNTRY FOOD MARKET, INC. V. BOTTLING GROUP, LLC. -- 06/22/2004<BR></A><BR> 1291 and AFFIRM. <strong></strong> <p><strong>BACKGROUND</strong> <p> Plaintiffs are corporations that operate grocery stores. Davis had recognized that they were often unable to sell their Pepsi products at prices competitive with other area grocery stores. Bottling Group is majority owned by Holdings. Holdings is indirectly wholly owned by The Pepsi Bottling Group. Davis have acquired. Plaintiffs therefore have no access. All allegations were predicated on Bottling Group's refusal to deal with Plaintiffs following Plaintiffs' initiation of the price discrimination lawsuit against BPC. <p> The district court denied Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction and granted summary judgment in favor of Bottling Group and Holdings. That the complaint should have been treated by the district court as constructively amended. Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings. Show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. <u>Fed. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/99-15021.man.html">SPAIN V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. (10/18/2000, NO. 99-15021)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1997/97a1502p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse and remand. I. Appellants are trustees of the Anthracite Health and Welfare Fund and the fund itself (collectively. Is a general partnership consisting of George Huss. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation. Huss Industries are all appellees. The court nonetheless held that the Fund had failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm if temporary relief were not granted. The district court further indicated that Beaverbrook might not be obligated to make interim payments when the merits of the Fund's claim were considered if Beaverbrook showed that it would suffer irreparable harm as a result. The court declined to rule on whether all of the defendants were employers for purposes of MPPAA and. Employers are required to make interim payments. So the Fund need show only that payments were not made when demanded. The Fund contends that under Flying Tiger the court must decide whether all of the appellees are considered employers for purposes of MPPAA. The issues appellant raises are legal questions over which we exercise plenary review. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/95-3000.man.html">MONTGOMERY V. NOGA (3/5/1999, NO. 95-3000)<BR></A><BR> We endeavor to bring a small measure of clarity to certain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/991378.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: Admiralty law is considered one of the most complex areas of American law. We are now asked to resolve some of the problems arising from the Supreme Court's holding problems that the Court itself recognized by ruling upon two distinct questions that the Court expressly declined to decide. Ltd. will be defined. Calhoun: Is Yamaha a Cry by the Judiciary for Legislative Action in State Territorial Waters? We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Holding instead that federal maritime law must govern the standards by which Yamaha's liability will be evaluated. Natalie died when the Yamaha1 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/99-15021.man.html">SPAIN V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP. (10/18/2000, NO. 99-15021)<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B1E6416438C95FF3882572E300839DF0/$file/0435182.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> IN RE: THE EXXON VALDEZ 6039 ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT: The opinion in In re Exxon Valdez. 472 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2006) is amended as follows: On page 621. Delete the first full paragraph commencing with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="472"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/95-3000.man.html">MONTGOMERY V. NOGA (3/5/1999, NO. 95-3000)<BR></A><BR> We endeavor to bring a small measure of clarity to certain </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1258.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Laney and Susi were on brief for appellants. Knox and Thompson & Bowie were on brief for appellee. Specifically finding that the saw was not defectively designed. The area surrounding the anti kick fingers and the infeed rollers is open and not guarded by any physical covering. There is no need for the operator to approach the open space near the anti kick fingers and the infeed rollers. Espeaignnette was trained to operate the edger and subsequently ran it without incident for a period of two to three weeks. Espeaignnette testified that while he was crouched beside the edger. His arm was crushed. Alleging that the edger was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous because of the lack of physical guards covering the infeed roller area. Measures are taken which. Would have made the event less likely to occur. Evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. Evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0273p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For the following reasons: (1) the district court's judgment for Mitsubishi is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for a new trial. (2) the district court's award of fees to Mitsubishi is VACATED. (3) the case is to be assigned to a different district judge. We will narrate the background in some detail. He was found lying in the car's backseat. The driver's side seatbelt was unlatched. The maker of the 1991 Dodge Stealth that Nemir was driving. Of which Mitsubishi is a subsidiary. We will refer to the defendants collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3105.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Seeking damages and declaratory relief for the Insurers' alleged breach of insurance policies under which THAN is insured. I. BACKGROUND THAN is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with <hr> its principal place of business in Lenexa. Kansas.(1) THAN is a subsidiary of Philips Electronics North America Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff was traveling aboard one of Defendant's buses from Michigan to Georgia. (J.A. at 984) The bus did not have an entryresistant barrier next to the driver's seat. Sands was driving the bus at an approximate speed of 65 to 70 miles per hour when. Plaintiff served Defendant with a Request for Production of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="470"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-4216.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. R. 36.3. <hr> This is a products liability action alleging that plaintiff appellant. The radiofrequency device This procedure was performed by Dr. Rosenthal was well experienced in use of the radiofrequency device. As was the nurse who <hr> assisted him. The device is designed to therapeutically destroy painful nerve tissue by creating lesions in the tissue. An electrode was then inserted into the needle to produce the radiofrequency waves. The device was designed to operate in two basic modes. The usual procedure is to use the stim mode to locate the tissue to be lesioned. Which are controlled by a rate select button. The higher frequency setting (50 Hz) is used to stimulate the sensory part of the nerve. A lower frequency setting (2 Hz) is used to stimulate the motor portion of the nerve. <hr> b. Voltage adjustments There are also voltage adjustments to be made within the stim mode. The closer the needle is to the affected tissue. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C3653A92B2FEB47988256C0F00563404/$file/0035094.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This is a products liability case involving no questions of federal law. 2 This opinion is published pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36 2(g). The pain was caused by spurring on her vertebrae and deterioration of the disks in her neck. So she elected to have surgery to remove the spurs and the bad disks. This is a standard way to do the cervical fusion operation he was performing. This was hard for the patient to bear. Testified that while patients were routinely advised that they could have the halo instead. The fusion was solid. The plate was no longer necessary to hold her spine together. They are sold only to physicians. Did not even have them in his office. They were kept at the hospital. This was a medical device. Was sold to and used by physicians such as Dr. The directions that come with the device say to remove it once the bones have fused. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0297p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I BACKGROUND VTC is an Ohio corporation that was formed on December 5. Mary Ann Rabin was appointed Chapter 11 Operating Trustee for VTC. VTC confessed that it was unwilling or unable to litigate to determine which of the two plans would survive the confirmation process. The parties met to determine whether it was more appropriate to sell VTC's assets pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363 (providing that the bankruptcy trustee may use. Provided that: (1) the bankruptcy court would have confirmed the plan at least 11 days prior to that date. (3) the confirmation order would not have been vacated. [would] have been satisfied or waived. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1003.html">SCOSCHE V. VISOR GEAR<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/04/974390P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Entered by the district court2 pursuant to a jury verdict. 1 2 Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1994). The facts underlying the parties' dispute are as follows. Only Pall's BB50T is sufficiently </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTAzNDQtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-0344-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case was decided by a two judge panel. The resulting settlement was the largest in 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 the history of antitrust law. Defendants agreed not to tie their debit and credit products together and to pay more than $3 billion to plaintiffs in exchange for the release of any and all claims that were or could have been filed against defendants or their member banks (non parties in this action) based on the conduct alleged. Was an Visa and MasterCard are national bank card associations. The discount fee is determined by the acquiring institution. Economics demands that the discount fee be greater than the interchange fee the acquiring 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/datefile/datefile.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> End page heading. > <div align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1139.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Song K. With him on the brief was Eugene B. Of counsel on the brief was Michael J. Also of counsel were Brian T. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Appellant CEA is a French government research agency that develops new technologies for sale and license to the private sector for commercial use. An LCD is a type of flat panel display that is used in products such as computer monitors and television screens. Defendant Appellee CMO is a Taiwanese manufacturer of LCD products. Including LCD modules that are alleged by CEA to infringe their patents. CMO is the third largest LCD module maker in the world. Are shipped to major brand name computer manufacturers. The action is still pending against the other parties and has been consolidated with additional actions brought by CEA against other LCD manufacturers. Argued that the existing record was sufficient to deny the motion. If the record was not sufficient. That CMO is the number one supplier of 19 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="468"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/02-6101.htm">02-6101 -- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION V. KUYKENDALL -- 06/10/2004<BR></A><BR> We agree with the panel and the district court that the underlying proceedings were correctly classified as civil contempt proceedings. Before that appeal was heard the parties entered into a settlement that was eventually incorporated into a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="465"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0723p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The carriers contend that the claims asserted against their insured could not have arisen during the periods of their policy coverage. If such duties to defend are found. While we have jurisdiction over partial summary judgment orders made final by certification under Fed. Our standard of review is plenary. Have been and now are engaged in the manufacture of materials used for. Representatives and agents were and are placed on the market to be purchased and used by the public. . . . . He was employed as a welder. He was required to handle large quantities of the products manufactured and distributed by the above named Defendants. He was nevertheless exposed to the dangerous materials and especially those dust. Which were used by other workers in the same area at which Plaintiff was working. That the quoted allegations of the underlying complaint can be read to charge that the plaintiff was injured as a result of exposure to welding rod materials supplied. The duty to defend provision of the policy could have been triggered under Gedeon because the welding rod material could have been sold by Air Products to the employer in the underlying action during the covered period. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031911.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For direct infringement under §§ 501 and 106 of the Copyright Act because CoStar's copyrighted photographs were posted by LoopNet's subscribers on LoopNet's website. CoStar contended that the photographs were copied into LoopNet's computer system and that LoopNet therefore was a copier strictly liable for infringement of CoStar's rights under § 106. Regardless of whether LoopNet's role was passive when the photographs were copied into its system. Is simply the owner and manager of a system used by others who are violating CoStar's copyrights and is not an actual duplicator itself. It is not directly liable for copyright infringement. I CoStar is a national provider of commercial real estate information. It claims to have collected the most comprehensive database of 4 COSTAR GROUP v. LoopNet is an Internet service provider ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/991931.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Defendant tobacco companies have targeted the marketing of mentholated tobacco products at African Americans. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/024548p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether plaintiff should be allowed to amend his complaint under Fed. We will reverse and remand. Was grievously injured when the Cobra helicopter he copiloted crashed in a routine training flight involving a rocket firing exercise. DeRienzo received a reply from the staff judge advocate for the United States Marine Corps which stated: The manufacturer of the LAU 10 5.0 inch rocket launcher was the Lockley Manufacturing Company. The LAU10 was made in the 1960's as a LAU 10A/A and was subsequently reworked into a LAU 10D/A in the 1970's by Harvard Interiors [sic] of St. Lou is. Which stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041339p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005) Judge Chertoff heard oral argument in this case but resigned before the opinion was filed. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. §§ 46(d). * PATRICK L. We are asked to review the district court's grant of the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal on Count Three of an indictment charging Gary Wasserson with causing. We will reverse. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Gary Wasserson was the president and chief executive officer of Sterling Supply Company. That it was costly to have them dispose of the remaining inventory. Charles Hughes was a Sterling employee from 1980 through 1994. The government further claimed that Hughes had no experience in transporting or disposing of hazardous waste and no knowledge of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8F8B293F4A9CD8EB882570CE005A27CD/$file/0216947.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plant diseasecausing fungi are rarely the subject of casual dinner conversation. Scab are extremely serious matters. Benlate was one of DuPont's most successful commercial products. Who are commercial nurserymen. Many similar suits were filed by commercial growers across the nation. It became clear that DuPont had not revealed to Plaintiffs during discovery damaging test results that indicated that Benlate was indeed contaminated with SUs. There are three different categories of tests concealed. The settlement between Fuku Bonsai and DuPont was approved by the bankruptcy court on May 16. DUPONT DE NEMOURS 15643 by Alta Analytical Laboratories ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="463"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054406p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lindsey alleged that the pipe layer was defective in that it did not have a rollover protective structure. Even if preemption is at issue. He was operating a sideboom pipe laying tractor manufactured by Caterpillar. The tractors were traveling in reverse gear. Which was the lower of the two. The Caterpillar tractor was not equipped with a rollover protective structure. Which could have prevented Charles from being crushed. Opined that it was technologically and economically feasible for the Caterpillar pipe layer to have been equipped with a rollover protective structure. This opinion was based in part on the fact that Caterpillar had designed a rollover protective structure for the tractor model at issue. Was providing such structures on its sideboom pipe layers at the time Charles Lindsey's pipe layer was manufactured. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration Area Director recognized that pipe layers are exempted from the requirement for rollover protective structures. Caterpillar moved for summary judgment on the product liability claim on the basis that Lindsey's cause of action for defective design was preempted by the Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1438.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Thomas Greither ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001517.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Crofton1 entered into a contract with G & H PartThe contract of sale was actually signed by C & H Properties. Of which Harry and Dahlia Ratrie were partners. Ratrie represented: To the best of Seller's knowledge and while the [property] was in Seller's possession. Their byproducts </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2002/014535.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Clarke Will W. That a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. 2 Appellants are represented through briefs and oral argument by two groups of manufacturers. Which are in turn used in the manufacture of corrugated boxes and for a variety of industrial and commercial applications. Corrugated sheets are made by gluing a fluted sheet which is not made of linerboard. Corrugated sheets are also referred to as containerboard. Appellants are major integrated manufacturers and sellers of linerboard. Appellants are not ipsis verbis challenging the district court's determination that the putative classes met the requirements of Rule 23(a). 3. Stone Container Corp. and Smurfit Stone Container Corp. 7 After individual law suits were filed in the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 5 the cases were transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0423p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is an oral polio vaccine. Poliomyelitis (or polio) is a disease of the central nervous system that causes illness. That this scourge did not continue through the second half of the twentieth century is a credit to the work of several scientists. The Salk vaccine is known as an inactivated polio vaccine ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021537.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which entity was acquired in 1998 by Roche Holding. The purpose of the agreement was to facilitate the development. Technology.1 In ECL is used in testing human body fluids for the presence of substances like proteins and viruses. The fluid is added to a test kit called an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/10/95-1411.htm">95-1411 -- SPORTS RACING SERVICES, INC. V. SPORTS CAR CLUB OF AMERICA, INC. -- 10/28/1997<BR></A><BR> SCCA is a nonprofit organization that organizes and sanctions amateur sports car racing events for twenty three classes of sports cars. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="461"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/951604P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. BACKGROUND This case arose out of an automobile accident in which Gerald Shoemaker and Beverly Garner were killed. compartment of their vehicle. Brought this products liability action alleging that the engine fire was caused by a faulty fuel pump in the Chevrolet S 10 Blazer in which their mother was riding and that this defect caused her death. GM asserted that the fuel pump was neither faulty nor the cause of the fire and that instead. The cornerstone of the plaintiffs' case is the product's defect. asked complaints accidents. from customers To help prove that defect. The plaintiffs GM products) involving similar GM to produce its 1241 reports (1241 reports are essentially regarding GM represented that all 1241 reports were indexed in summary GM stated that its customary response form in its central computer file. actual 1241 reports. to discovery requests was to produce these 1241 summaries instead of the From these summaries. Plaintiffs could request the Both the 1241 specific 1241 reports in which they were interested. summaries and the reports proved difficult to obtain from GM and were the source of several discovery disputes during the months before trial. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C37FE78EBE161BA088256FBF0077D03D/$file/0315728.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: PMI MORTGAGE INS. v. For Certification of the Controlling Issue to the California Supreme Court and Appellees Columbia Casualty Company and Federal Insurance Company's Petition for Panel Rehearing are DENIED. BACKGROUND PMI is a large financial institution that sells. This insurance covers a lender for losses incurred when a borrower defaults on the repayment of a mortgage loan and the collateral is not sufficient to make the lender whole. The Third Amended Class Complaint alleged that PMI was undercharging its lender clients for various insurance products and services in exchange for customer referrals on mortgage insurance. The Baynham complaint also alleged that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/04BD340382A7132288256F89005DDC55/$file/0315728.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> BACKGROUND PMI is a large financial institution that sells. This insurance covers a lender for losses incurred when a borrower defaults on the repayment of a mortgage loan and the collateral is not sufficient to make the lender whole. The Third Amended Class Complaint alleged that PMI was undercharging its lender clients for various insurance products and services in exchange for customer referrals on mortgage insurance. The Baynham complaint also alleged that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTA0MTItY3YgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/04-0412-cv%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must decide whether Section 360k(a) preempts common law tort claims regarding medical devices that have entered the market pursuant to the Food and Drug Administration's ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="459"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972556.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Co. is corrected to begin </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="457"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1138.html">OINESS V. WALGREEN CO. (CORRECTED 7/10)<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/981809P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It stated that it was effective through December 31. He testified at trial that among the factors contributing to his decision was A/C's failure to keep its account with Lennox current. The letter noted that A/C's location in Tulsa was not a franchise location authorized under the January 2. Did not inform A/C that its delinquent account was a reason for Lennox's decision to terminate the franchise. 1996 was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/01/981200P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Jerry and Patricia Arnold contend they were using these products when their son and daughter in law. Debra Arnold became pregnant with Matthew Arnold who was born September 7. That is until April 1. When Matthew Arnold was born. Is used by United Industries Corp. Spectracide is then distributed by United to the public. The Arnolds contend that the Spectracide was purchased from Henley's Feed Store and came in a metal or glass container. Presented evidence that the product was never formulated or distributed in a metal or glass container. Diazinon is used by the Chevron Chemical Co. to formulate the product Ortho Hi Power Ant. The authority and statutory framework for this process is provided by the Federal Insecticide. The district court found </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412520.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Tran's Cressida was equipped with a restraint system consisting of a manual lap belt and an automatic shoulder belt. The shoulder belt was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3770.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> All of which we will refer to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1996/96a1478p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Will preclude the purchaser from seeking damages against the manufacturer of a product sold to the purchaser by the distributor. We conclude that because the proposed agreement between the distributor and the purchaser was never accepted by the distributor. The manufacturer is not protected by the limitation of damages provisions. The jury's award of damages should not have been based on or limited to the terms contained in the written agreement. We will vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for a new trial on liability and damages. Electra was an independent distributor of Chelgraph products. Nowhere in the forms was Chelgraph mentioned or even identified. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-3152.htm">98-3152 -- KINSER V. GEHL COMPANY -- 07/27/1999<BR></A><BR> Noting the tractor's engine was on and the power take off (PTO) device. Was still engaged. He lost consciousness during the ride and was pronounced dead within thirty minutes of his arrival at the hospital. <p> In August 1996. (3) breach of implied warranty by introducing into the stream of commerce an unreasonably dangerous product that was not fit for its intended purpose. <p> <center>II.</center> <p> Much of the trial revolved around the design evolution of big round balers. There are two types of such balers on the market: open throat models and closed throat models. Which was the design of the Gehl 1870 baler used by Kinser. An automatic tying system is triggered. Activates an arm that swings twine across the bale in the chamber and cuts the twine when the bale is fully wrapped. <p> Big round balers were invented in the early 1970s. Gehl has been the sole domestic manufacturer of closed throat balers. <p> Gehl's closed throat balers have undergone multiple design changes from the time they first were manufactured in 1974. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981835.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Betty Little was injured while sitting at one of the concrete tables in an outdoor cafe area of a building operated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2001/995697.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Holding that Hartford was substantially prejudiced by the fact that it was not notified of the accident until three years after it happened. NKK was required to build a materials handling system consisting essentially of a series of conveyor belts and a boom that would be placed on the Rio Caroni to facilitate the movement of iron ore onto the vessel and its discharge from the vessel. Which was to provide NKK with engineering expertise. One of the parts EDC contracted to supply was a boom cylinder. Because EDC was itself unable to build the boom cylinder. Exactly which party designed the boom cylinder is unclear from the record on appeal. The purchase or der stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7C69776C29CF001D88256E6F00728DAC/$file/0256842.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: At slip op. 3999. Spencer Letts (before this case was reassigned to District Judge Stephen V. Spencer Letts (before this case was reassigned to District Judge Stephen V. Enforma contends that the district court's unilateral substantive amendment of the parties' stipulated proposed preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion. Enforma also argues that the findings and conclusions issued in support of the second injunction are insufficient and that the court's reliance on the court appointed expert was improper. Enforma also agreed not to sell or market any product making the above or similar claims unless it possessed and relied upon </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/feb96/94-3296.wpd.html">PATTON V. TIC UNITED CORP.<BR></A><BR> I Ryan Patton was raised on his family's farm in Hiawatha. The wings are lowered for use. A hydraulic system is used to lift. When the pins are removed. A new hydraulic cylinder is not charged. To insure that the cylinder will support a wing. The operator must cycle the machine to make sure that the hydraulic system is fully charged before removing the safety pin. The operating instructions did not state how to insure that the hydraulic system was properly charged or warn that the wings should not be in an upright position when replacing the cylinder. Because the day was cool and rainy. The shed was too small to permit the wings to be fully lowered while changing the cylinder. Patton retracted the cylinder to make sure that the wings were fully raised. Unaware that the cylinder was in fact not completely charged. Although he knew that one possible cause of binding was that the cylinder was not charged. The cultivator that injured Patton was manufactured by Wil Rich. Between 1981 and 1987 the assets and stock of Wil Rich were transferred among a number of entities through merger. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1285.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Robert D. With her on the brief were Hugh L. Of counsel were Paul J. Inc. (collectively Apotex) will not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Because claim 1 of the '723 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Curzons's test results established that the new product was the hemihydrous form of PHC (PHC hemihydrate). Ferrosan's original form was anhydrous PHC (PHC anhydrate). The only claim at issue in this case is claim 1. SmithKline alleges that Apotex's proposed drug will infringe claim 1 of the '723 patent. PHC anhydrate ­ the Ferrosan discovery ­ is prior art for the '723 patent. SmithKline asserts that Apotex will infringe by manufacturing PHC anhydrate tablets that necessarily contain. Including cross motions for summary judgment that claim 1 of the '723 patent was invalid (or valid) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for an impermissible public use. Holding that the '723 patent was not invalid for public use under § 102(b). Supp. 2d at The trial record contained uncontested testimony that a PHC anhydrate hemihydrate mixture would need to possess a percentage of PHC hemihydrate in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-40725.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to determine whether an insurance company had a duty to defend an insured in a state court lawsuit (which has since settled). The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. The facts in this matter are essentially undisputed. therefore. Rogers </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/10/952893P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Diane Buchanna was a saw operator for Bassett Wood Products. saw for approximately 12 years. Buchanna had been a saw operator for 18 years and had worked with the same The saw she worked with was a Model SL52 industrial straight line ripsaw manufactured by appellant Diehl in 1968. The saw has a 15 horsepower motor and a 14 inch blade and is used to cut a board in half length wise. Was enclosed by a metal guard called a sawpit. to guarding the blade. The sawpit served as a sawdust receptacle. door accessed the sawpit and the blade was 12 inches from the door. it takes four to five minutes for the blade to coast to a stop. from several machines including the ripsaw. the door is opened. Or the power is turned off. Was used to remove sawdust After its manufacture. Diehl provided a number of warning labels that were affixed to the saw. She turned off the saw and then used a piece of wood to stop the blade so that she did not have to wait for it to coast to a stop. Were spinning. The case was tried to a jury for three days. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1285.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Robert D. With her on the brief were Hugh L. Of counsel were Paul J. Inc. (collectively Apotex) will not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Because claim 1 of the '723 patent is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Curzons's test results established that the new product was the hemihydrous form of PHC (PHC hemihydrate). Ferrosan's original form was anhydrous PHC (PHC anhydrate). The only claim at issue in this case is claim 1. SmithKline alleges that Apotex's proposed drug will infringe claim 1 of the '723 patent. PHC anhydrate ­ the Ferrosan discovery ­ is prior art for the '723 patent. SmithKline asserts that Apotex will infringe by manufacturing PHC anhydrate tablets that necessarily contain. Including cross motions for summary judgment that claim 1 of the '723 patent was invalid (or valid) under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for an impermissible public use. Holding that the '723 patent was not invalid for public use under § 102(b). Supp. 2d at The trial record contained uncontested testimony that a PHC anhydrate hemihydrate mixture would need to possess a percentage of PHC hemihydrate in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3234.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P. 56(e) are met. It is permissible to submit simple statistical calculations such as averages without first being designated as an expert witness. We conclude that Bryant's evidence calling into question the veracity of Farmers' nondiscriminatory reasons for firing her are sufficient to establish pretext for summary judgment purposes. The Parties Bryant is a sixty one year old white female who worked for Farmers in various capacities from March 1992 until her termination in March 2000.(1) (1) The record indicates that Bryant technically worked for a number of Farmers' predecessor companies during the period from March 1992 to March2000. We will refer to these predecessor companies (along with the defendant corporation) collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AAEB4F1BB780D3ED8825718000726DA6/$file/0455354.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued the case and were on the briefs for the appellants/cross appellees. Argued the case and was on the briefs for the appellees/cross appellants. Were on the briefs for amicus curiae California Board of Equalization. We hold that an importer of goods destined for domestic consumption is not exempt from state excise taxes and administrative searches by federal Customs officials simply because it stores its merchandise in a foreign trade zone. Was licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol. The term </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/033945p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm in part and reverse in part. Adams Golf's public offering materials indicated that the Company sold its golf equipment exclusively to authorized retailers and that the golf industry was flourishing. That unauthorized retailers were selling Adams Golf's golf clubs. That retailers industry wide were carrying an oversupply of golf equipment. The Company was a golfing components supplier and a contract manufacturer. 000 shares of the Company's common stock was made at $16 per share. The District Court held that the plaintiffs who purchased Adams Golf shares on the public market did not have a private right of action under section 12(a)(2) of the 1 In their complaint. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants failed to disclose that its revenues were artificially inflated by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="455"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/may96/94-5173.wpd.html">MAY V. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. CO.<BR></A><BR> The material facts are not disputed. This policy is not at issue in this case. May and Worsham were acting in the scope of their employment for Gold Bond when the accident occurred. Gold Bond owned or leased the automobile in which they were traveling. The Policy was last renewed prior to the accident on January 1. Asking the district court to determine the extent of uninsured motorist coverage to which they were entitled under the Policy. Contending there were no disputes as to the material facts and the district court could decide all issues as a matter of law. That if it did include such coverage the limit of liability was $10. Applicable Law & Standard of Review The district court's jurisdiction over this matter was based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. 1332. Because Oklahoma is the forum state in this dispute. We will apply the most recent statements of Oklahoma law by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Summary judgment is appropriate when </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200602/04-1432a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Joseph L. With her on the brief were Kenneth L. Nor does petitioner dispute that its ephedrine and pseudoephedrine containing products have been and will continue to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2150.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. Electric was not truly completed by the Agreement. The Lynn Gas Co. was dissolved in 1980. Some of the land upon which the Lynn Gas & Electric Co. and Lynn Gas Co. manufactured gas was taken by eminent domain from Boston Gas and Mass. When these buyers discovered that the property was contaminated by coal gas waste. Is the subject of this appeal. Their disposition is not at issue on appeal. 2 NEPSCO is a service company devoted to providing administrative. These are: the owner or operator of a contaminated vessel or facility. Courts have interpreted this statute to include successor corporations in a merger situation. We have not overlooked the fact that the Massachusetts Superfund Act is also a part of this case. CERCLA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0412p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Finding that Budd qualified as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/020752FE40C3AEB788256E68007D0070/$file/0256842.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Enforma contends that the district court's unilateral substantive amendment of the parties' stipulated proposed preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion. ENFORMA NATURAL PRODUCTS in support of the second injunction are insufficient and that the court's reliance on the court appointed expert was improper. Leading to lower levels of fat in the Because the factual and procedural histories of both appeals are intertwined. Enforma also agreed not to sell or market any product making the above or similar claims unless it possessed and relied upon </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="453"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1363.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. were Michelle Carniaux and Robert M. With him on the brief was J. With him on the brief was Michael J. With him on the brief were Michael S. Of counsel was Stephen L. These declaratory judgment actions were brought by Sony Electronics. Each of the five plaintiffs (four of which are appellants in this appeal) sued Guardian Media Technologies. Were not infringed by the plaintiffs. The relevant facts are undisputed. The patents describe a system in which users can selectively block the viewing or playing of programs that have particular 2006 1363 2 program classification codes. Both patents were issued on May 29. Both were assigned to Guardian in November 2003. Are using parental rating control technology invented by Peter S. The subject patents are basic to parental control systems and the v chip system in particular and other parental rating control systems and devices. 2000 to have a feature designed to enable viewers to block the display of all programs with a common parental guideline rating. This technology is referred to as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/10/023280P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The policy provided: We will pay on behalf of the Insured those sums in excess of the Retained Limit that the Insured becomes legally obligated to pay by reason of liability imposed by law or assumed by the Insured under an Insured Contract because of Bodily Injury. Personal Injury or Advertising Injury that takes place during the Policy Period and is caused by an Occurrence happening anywhere in the world. Or Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured. The policy further provided that National Union has the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/12/963653P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Determined that the Consent Decree was procedurally and substantively fair. Was consistent with CERCLA. The Intervenors also contend that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the Consent Decree was procedurally and substantively fair. The two cases were consolidated. BACKGROUND The following summary of facts is largely taken from the district court's published Order and Memorandum. The MEW Site was owned at all relevant times by Missouri Electrical Works. The total amount of transformer oil that was not recycled during MEW's operation is estimated at 28. Apparently were disposed of at the MEW Site. Was contaminated. The PRPs were given an opportunity to object to the ultimate settlement package. The Intervenors are service shop owners and their trade association. Settling PRPs must pay for all costs but will be reimbursed by the government for twenty percent of some costs incurred in the design and construction of the remedial action. Additional response actions that are necessary to achieve certain performance standards. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034097p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will reverse the judgment of the District Court in favor of the defendant and remand with directions to grant the Government's request for injunctive relief. Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in York Pennsylvania. The relevant market is the sale of prefabricated artificial teeth in the United States. Artificial tooth manufacturing is marked by a low or no growth potential. Is about 15 times larger than its next closest competitor. The other significant manufacturers and their market shares are: 4 Ivoclar Vivadent. There are hundreds of dealers who compete on the basis of price and service among themselves. The relationship is essentially terminable at will. Dealer Criterion 6 was enforced against dealers with the exception of those who had carried competing products before 1993 and were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="451"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-1257.html">INLAND STEEL V. US<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0023n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The sole issue before this court is whether the trial court erred in determining that defendant Borden is not liable to indemnify OXY for costs incurred by OXY in a federally mandated cleanup of the Skinner Landfill in West Chester. OXY is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. Borden is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio. Three surface impoundments were located on the Levey facility property. Two provisions of the APA are of particular importance to this case. Cities will sell. Except only those liabilities and obligations which are to be assumed by Borden as provided herein . . . . Cities will continue to be responsible for all obligations arising out of events occurring prior to and on the Closing Date relating to the business or assets of the Levey Division. Cities shall have no obligations or liabilities arising out of failure of such assets to have been in compliance prior to the Closing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may95/93-3555.opa.html">MOSHER V. SPEEDSTAR DIV. OF AMCA INT'L<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mosher v. Because the issues presented by this appeal involve questions of state law implicating substantial public policy concerns and because there appears to be conflicting controlling precedents in the divisions of the Florida courts that are dispositive of these issues. We believe the issues are appropriate for resolution by the Supreme Court of Florida. SECTION 3(b)(6) OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION.<p> <p> TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICES THEREOF:<p> <p> I. <i>STYLE OF THE CASE</i><p> <p> The style of the case in which this certification is made is as follows: Robert C. This case is assigned number 93 3555 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.<p> II. <i>STATEMENT OF THE CASE</i><p> <p> A. <i>Facts and Procedural History</i><p> <p> This is the second time this case has been before the Eleventh Circuit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may95/93-3555.opa.html">MOSHER V. SPEEDSTAR DIV. OF AMCA INT'L<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Mosher v. Because the issues presented by this appeal involve questions of state law implicating substantial public policy concerns and because there appears to be conflicting controlling precedents in the divisions of the Florida courts that are dispositive of these issues. We believe the issues are appropriate for resolution by the Supreme Court of Florida. SECTION 3(b)(6) OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION.<p> <p> TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICES THEREOF:<p> <p> I. <i>STYLE OF THE CASE</i><p> <p> The style of the case in which this certification is made is as follows: Robert C. This case is assigned number 93 3555 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.<p> II. <i>STATEMENT OF THE CASE</i><p> <p> A. <i>Facts and Procedural History</i><p> <p> This is the second time this case has been before the Eleventh Circuit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/064292p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will. Will order the reinstatement of Broadcom's state and common law claims. Mobile Wireless Telephony and the UMTS Standard Mobile wireless telephony is the general term for describing the technology and equipment used in the operation of cellular telephones. It is essential that all components involved in this transmission of information be able to communicate seamlessly with one another. Industry wide standards are necessary to ensure their interoperability. Standards are determined privately by industry groups known as standards determining organizations ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/sept97/95-1524.wpd.html">SCHWARTZ V. CELESTIAL SEASONINGS, INC.<BR></A><BR> This court reverses and remands. (1) Judge Henry was not present during oral argument. He was vouched in. The IPO Prospectus revealed that Celestial was introducing new ready to drink ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1357.html">KNORR-BREMSE SYSTEME FUER NUTZFAHRZEUGE GMBH V. DANA CORPORATION, ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff cross appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Michael I. Cantor</u> and <u>Karen Canaan</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>John C. Defendant appellant Dana Corporation.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief for Haldex were <u>Wesley W. Of counsel were <u>James P. Copyright Section.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Lynn E. For amicus curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>F. Christopher Mizzo</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Melvin C. Inc.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Emily A. Evans</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>Michael A. For amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Jeffrey I.D. New York.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Also on the brief was <u>David G. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1779.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> <A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2002/01-12321.opn.html">SOUTHLAND DISTRIB. MKTG. CO. V. S&P CO. (7/2/2002, NO. 01-12321)<BR></A><BR> The duration of the agreement was five years. The letter is backdated to the date of their 1991 oral agreement. You [Pabst] have agreed to make Southland Marketing an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2002/01-12321.opn.html">SOUTHLAND DISTRIB. MKTG. CO. V. S&P CO. (7/2/2002, NO. 01-12321)<BR></A><BR> The duration of the agreement was five years. The letter is backdated to the date of their 1991 oral agreement. You [Pabst] have agreed to make Southland Marketing an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2604.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That network is composed of independent common carrier truckers. All of these drivers were independent contractors. Some of whom were represented by various local unions (also referred to as Fund drivers). Eight of the employee drivers were represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 460. Three of the employee drivers were represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 695. The Nestle transportation network was split into local lanes and over the road lanes. These local lanes were in practice operated exclusively by the Fund drivers. The over the road lanes were routes over which trucks would transport Nestle products between two or more geographic locations. The Fund drivers at those locations were let go. Even though Nestle's need for truckers who were located near those terminals did not end entirely. Therefore was near the same location as the terminated Fund drivers. Joseph and Oconomowoc were performed exclusively by independent common carriers. Were distributed amongst all remaining classes of drivers. The only difference is that after the terminal closure. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0200p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/023151p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Presents a question of admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 407 of remedial measures offered by a plaintiff to establish that a product is defective. Timothy Diehl was severely injured when his legs became * The Honorable Louis H. 1 alleging that the machine was defective because (1) its rear wheels were not enclosed. These measures were taken in order to prevent similar accidents in the future. Judgment was entered against the Diehls. That the evidence offered in this case was relevant and would not tend to confuse or mislead the jury. Because we conclude that the exclusion of this evidence was not harmless error. We will reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for a new trial. Timothy Diehl was severely injured while working as a laborer on a road crew for IA Construction. The road crew was using a machine called a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="449"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1999/987159.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> For underpayment of tax attributable to a valuation overstatement pursuant to IRC S 6659.1 The Commissioner's decision was based upon the taxpayers' attempt to claim tax credits and losses purportedly resulting from their 1981 investment in Northeast Resource Recovery Associates ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/994069.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Harry Kradel was injured in 1994 while operating a forage harvester. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. Hiniker is not liable because it does not fall within the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2003/024098p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The principal issue on appeal is the proper application of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to the proffered testimony of plaintiffs' experts. 3 I. Its tragic facts have been well documented. Twelve year old Natalie Calhoun was vacationing with her friend. Affixed to the jet ski was a warning that the minimum recommended age for operation was fourteen. No parents or guardians were present at this time. While Melanie was riding the jet ski. Fox that riding the jet ski was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044387p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Debtor Civil Action No. 03 cv 05869 LINDA WILL. One of these third party defendants (all of whom were ultimately sued by Wheeler as well as by Northwestern). We hold that the Court properly applied our Court's factors in approving the settlement under bankruptcy law and that it did not abuse its discretion in finding the settlement was made in good faith under Illinois law. I. Factual Background and Procedural History Wheeler was a starting safety at Northwestern. One supplement was made by a company called Next Proteins. The other Xenadrine RFA 1 was made by Phoenix Laboratories. These supplements were purchased at a store owned by General Nutrition Corporation (GNC). (Ephedra was banned by the Food and Drug Administration in 2004 because of the risk of heart arrhythmia and stroke associated with it.). Linda Will and George Wheeler. Believing that Wheeler's death was related to his ingesting the ephedracontaining products. 52 pending wrongful death and personal injury actions were transferred to the District of New Jersey on the ground that they were related to the bankruptcy filing in that District. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1997/97a1688p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm. Inc. is a fast food service company that sells pizza through a national network of over 4200 stores. Inc. is the second largest pizza company in the United States. The essence of a successful nationwide fast food chain is product uniformity and consistency. Uniformity benefits franchisees because customers can purchase pizza from 3 any Domino's store and be certain the pizza will taste exactly like the Domino's pizza with which they are familiar. This means that individual franchisees need not build up their own good will. It ensures the brand name will continue to attract and hold customers. Section 12.2 is subject to a reasonableness clause providing that Domino's Pizza. When Do Franchisors Have Market Power? DPDD was formerly a subsidiary of Domino's Pizza. The plaintiffs in this case are eleven Domino's franchisees and the International Franchise Advisory Council. Even though the dough producing stores were willing to sell dough at a price 25% to 40% below Domino's Pizza. FPC was appointed the purchasing agent for IFAC member Domino's franchisees. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1312.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was James A. Of counsel were Vu Q. Of counsel was Mark J. Alleging that the '902 patent was invalid and unenforceable. The parties stipulated to the following construction of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043591np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will limit our restatement of the background here. Thousands of lawsuits were filed against Wyeth in state and federal courts. The terms of the settlement agreement and the final order indicated that the District Court shall have continuing jurisdiction to administer. Class members were entitled to opt out of the settlement agreement initially. Those who decided to opt out at the 4 intermediate stage were informed that the scope of their claims would be limited and specifically they were precluded from </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6222.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> As we are reversing the grant of summary judgment. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0973p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is a trade dress infringement action in which plaintiff Versa Products Company. Which Versa maintains copies the product configuration of the B 316.[fn1] The action was brought under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. That there was a likelihood of confusion of the sources of Bifold's Domino Junior and Versa's B 316 valves. In connection with which we are called upon to determine whether the jurisprudence that lowers the standard to a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-3299.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> One such product is Provent a Mite. Learned that certain reptile dealers and reptile product suppliers were marketing a pesticide labeled Black Knight for use in eradicating reptile parasites. Dealers and suppliers were marketing Black Knight for this use despite the fact that Black Knight was not registered or approved for the treatment of pests affecting reptiles. Is registered under the Federal Insecticide. Black Knight is an aerosol product containing hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 22 and 142 (monochlorodifluoromethane and monochlorodifluoroethane. Are banned by the CAA. Although the distribution or sale of products containing banned substances is permitted for an additional period if a reformulation exemption is first obtained. That Airosol was in violation of 7671i(d)(1)(A) of the CAA. Relied heavily on its conclusion that Pro Products' suit was brought to remove a competitor from the market and not out of a concern for the (1) Airosol does not contest the district court's conclusion that it violated the Act. <hr> environment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="447"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051817p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will affirm the District Court's confirmation of the arbitration award. I. Factual and Jurisdictional Background The parties to the arbitration are Safeguard International Partners. SIP is the general partner of SIF Management. The Agreement did not specify what 1 The partnership agreements are all governed by Delaware 3 law. court would have jurisdiction over the arbitration. Related parties who were also owed fees. SIP filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to determine who was eligible for arbitration under the Agreement. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because there was not complete diversity of citizenship between the multiple parties. Any lien from the arbitration award is released. We note that this motion might have been brought more properly under FED. Although there is not complete diversity between the parties. There is federal subject matter jurisdiction based on the Federal Arbitration Act. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0737p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which were tried to the court. [fn1] the district court held that there was no employer liability. No appeal was taken on them. Bouton appeals the adverse judgments on one Title VII claim and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-2081.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> II with whom Stewart Law Office was on brief for appellants. P.A. was on brief for appellee. *Of the District of Puerto Rico. 1 all of which were based on a claimed malfunction of a GE manufactured toaster oven. Plaintiffs alleged that the toaster oven's malfunction was due to a defect in its design or manufacture and that this defect was the proximate cause of a fire which destroyed the Walker family residence. There was uncontradicted testimony that the Walkers used the appliance daily. The toaster oven was stored in the kitchen. There was also testimony that. Almost the last thing she did before leaving the house was to remove the toast from the toaster oven. Since she was rushing to get her children ready to leave. She was informed by a school official that her house was on fire. The fire originated in the area where the toaster oven was located. She further opined that the presence of either the toaster oven itself or the 3 3 outlet into which it was plugged could have served as the source of ignition for the fire. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199910/98-5176a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the briefs were Steven H. Was on the briefs for appellant. With her on the brief were David W. Richardson was not seeking compensation for tortious acts or omissions of military per sonnel. In asserting that his claim was based on the defective or negligent manufacturing of the vaccine. We have no need to reach Mr. Richardson's argument that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to grant him leave to amend his complaint after it was dismissed. While Roy Dale Richardson was on active duty with the U.S. Richard son was honorably discharged on May 16. At which time he was awarded Veteran's Administration disabili ty compensation. He alleges that his injuries are varied. He alleged that the United States was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/06/97-6437.htm">97-6437 -- STAUTH V. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY -- 06/24/1999<BR></A><BR> <a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/98opinions/98-5176a.html">RICHARDSON ROY DALE V. USA<BR></A><BR> On the briefs were Steven H. </P> <P>Goldblatt. Was on the briefs </P> <P>for appellant.</P> <P> Somesha Ferdinand. With her on the brief were </P> <P>David W. Richardson was not seeking </P> <P>compensation for tortious acts or omissions of military per </P> <P>sonnel. In asserting that his claim was </P> <P>based on the defective or negligent manufacturing of the </P> <P>vaccine. We have no need to reach Mr. </P> <P>failing to grant him leave to amend his complaint after it was </P> <P>dismissed.</P> <P> I. While Roy Dale Richardson was on </P> <P>active duty with the U.S. Richard </P> <P>son was honorably discharged on May 16. At </P> <P>which time he was awarded Veteran's Administration disabili </P> <P>ty compensation. He alleges that his injuries are varied. He alleged that the United States was </P> <P> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="445"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/003628P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Long was using at the time he was injured. The trailer was equipped with a manual ratchet device that tightened chains attached to each corner of the vehicles being transported. Long's trailer was developed in the 1940s. Is one such group. Studies concerning injuries to drivers during the tying and untying processes were reported at various GM Haulaway Committee meetings during the late 1970s and The Honorable Catherine D. GM Haulaway subcommittees were involved in testing equipment designed by the trailer manufacturers. The quick release ratchet is a device that effectively eliminates the need for the driver to exert high levels of force on the ratchet when untying a vehicle. Neither ratchet was implemented into a trailer at that time. Was given to the haulers for the purpose of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-3412_017.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have done so in some capacity since the early 1900s. I. Background Four of Keystone's industrial sites are at issue in this case: Peoria. Which is one of the largest in North America. Keystone was using four such vapor degreasing cabinets. Which is sulfuric acid used to clean steel rods for wire drawing. The Impex Site is a former metal working plant located in Crawfordsville. Keystone seeks indemnification from Wausau for expenses incurred and a declaration that Wausau will be liable for future costs. No. 05 3412 5 The final site relating to this lawsuit is the Ninth Avenue Site. (2) that where there is no duty to defend. There will be no duty to indemnify. Are erroneous. Where there is no duty to defend. There will be no duty to indemnify. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sept1995/95a1161p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This appeal by defendant/third party plaintiff Commer cial Union Insurance Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2232.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </SPAN> were on brief. Were on brief. Was a passenger in the front seat of his parents'. Cabrera was driving the Sonata home from a family outing to the movies. The Sonata was struck by another car on the right side. Eduardo was located between three and ten inches from the airbag. The estate alleged that Hyundai was strictly liable for Eduardo's death. That the airbag system was not defectively designed and that Eduardo's death was caused by his failure to wear his seatbelt at the time of the accident.</P> <P> After an eleven day trial. Hyundai moved to set them aside as inconsistent and asked that the jury be recharged because it could not rationally have reached differing conclusions on the strict liability and negligence counts. <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1792.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Joglar were on brief for appellant. Guzm n Law offices were on brief for appellee. Perez was operating a new 1993 On August 10. Perez was operating a new 1993 Volvo 940 GL381 along a smooth. Was bag sensor. Was sent to Volvo for testing.2 sent to Volvo for testing. The air bag is designed to inflate and deflate within The air bag is designed to inflate and deflate within one fifth of a second. Concluded that the air bag must have deployed after. Rather than concluded that the air bag must have deployed after. Asserting a strict product liability claim based on the theory that the Perez injury was proximately caused by the air theory that the Perez injury was proximately caused by the air bag system. Attested that insurance industry studies have indicated that non collision. Since the sensor is designed to stop eyewitness testimony. Since the sensor is designed to stop recording data once the air bag deploys. Therefore a prema ture deployment would have disabled the sensor from recording the ture deployment would have disabled the sensor from recording the subsequent collision. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="443"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1206.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Epstein with whom Spillane & Epstein was on brief for Joao Carreiro. Mahoney & Miller were on brief for Main Machinery Company and H. Fine with whom Licht & Semonoff was on brief for Barry G. Fox was on brief for The Robbins Company. Whose wife Teresa was killed while operating a machine press at The Robbins Company ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/99-14858.man.html">GROUPE CHEGARAY/V. DE CHALUS V. P&O CONTAINERS (5/24/2001, NO. 99-14858)<BR></A><BR> All but two of which were wrapped onto a total of 42 pallets. We affirm in part and reverse in part.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1995.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. Ropes & Gray were on brief. Thacher & Bartlett were on brief. Both complaints assert that there were misleading statements and nondisclosures in the registration statement and prospectus prepared in connection with a public offering of stock. Background Digital Equipment Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-8899.man.html">KOBATAKE V. DUPONT DE NEMOURS (12/3/1998, NO. 97-8899)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> The judgement in this case is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well reasoned order filed on July 18. Senior District Judge:</P> <P> These related actions are before the court on defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints in both litigations. Plaintiffs rely on the same legal theories in both cases to counter defendants' argument.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> Plaintiffs are nursery owners whose plants were allegedly damaged by Benlate 50DF. While the jury was deliberating. (3) any and all claims which might have been alleged. Or which were alleged. Which provide that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1788.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Nereyda Garcia and Sherin & Lodgen LLP were on brief. David Chaffin and Hare & Chaffin were on brief. Berry & Howard were on brief. Eaton and Sloane & Walsh were on brief. Other environmental laws have pitted businesses against their insurers in fierce disputes over who will bear these costs. That is the case here. Underlying this lawsuit is the cleanup of five hazardous waste sites. Millipore Corporation was one of the sources of waste at the sites. Was a defendant in several actions alleging violations of federal and state environmental laws. The primary issue here is whether the district court erred in entering summary judgment for the insurers (and then denying reconsideration) on the ground that none of Millipore's CERCLA liability is covered under any of the comprehensive general liability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/08/001836P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were her brand of choice until 1981. Boerner was diagnosed with lung cancer in July of 1996. Boerner was a relatively healthy woman until she developed cancer. Was plagued by cigarette cravings each time and. Because she was not particularly serious about quitting. She was unaware of the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. No warnings were given. The congressionally mandated warning that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0073n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. and Royal Indemnity Company (collectively Southside) are seeking indemnity from CSX Transportation. The primary issue on appeal is whether a provision in the agreement between Southside and CSX that required Southside to obtain liability insurance also insulated CSX from liability. Southside claims that the district court erred in determining that the provision absolved CSX and further argues that the court should not have applied the agreement to the dispute in the first place. One of Southside's clients is Cognis Corporation. Was ready for delivery. That the substance in the tank car was not in fact methyl ester. The car contained an inedible fatty acid that CSX was supposed to deliver to Peter Cremer North America. Summary judgment is proper where there exists no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The central issue is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-1285.html">SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP., ET AL. V. APOTEX CORP., ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Robert D. Argued for defendants cross appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With her on the brief were <u>Hugh L. Nelson</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel were <u>Paul J. Inc. (collectively Apotex) will not infringe claim 1 of U.S. Apotex s prod </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/023603p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue in this appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in approving a $44.5 million nationwide settlement agreement between DuPont and the fixed co pay consumers and out of pocket consumers (collectively. Accordingly we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Factual History Warfarin sodium is a prescription oral anticoagulant medication sold in tablet form that is taken by more than 2 million Americans to treat blood clotting disorders. Fixed co pay consumers refer to those insured consumers who paid the same price for prescription drugs regardless of whether the drugs were name brand or generic. Out of pocket consumers refers to individuals who paid different prices for prescription drugs depending on whether they were name brand or generic. When a generic version of warfarin sodium was released onto the market following approval by the U.S. Class action plaintiffs have alleged that DuPont. DuPont's alleged violations are said to have begun when Barr Laboratories. On the grounds that the methods in place for determining bioequivalence were sufficient. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1067.html">PANDROL USA, LP AND PANDROL LIMITED V. AIRBUSS RAILWAY<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>Raymond B. Argued for defendants appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Christopher P. </o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line hei </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B7C562F79A6F968B88256F020058E953/$file/0355179.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0019p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. The plaintiffs in these four consolidated appeals are retirees or surviving spouses of the J.I. The underlying issue is whether the retirement health care benefits vested for life. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that their health care benefits are fully vested for life. The defendants are El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company and CNH America. Was established in 1842 and became a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenneco (now El Paso) in 1970. Included was all of the JI Case business (defined as the farm and construction equipment business of Tenneco) except for Tenneco's JI Case stock. Case Equipment was then spun off on July 1. Is now known as CNH America.2 In 1996. Tenneco merged with a subsidiary of El Paso Natural Gas Company and is now known as El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company. At times the opinion will refer to CNH America by its previous names. Page 3 forward contain the following language in Section 4A with respect to the Group Insurance Plans: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2001/003410.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the dismissal under Fed. Who are cigarette wholesalers. The District Court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Sherman Act because the tobacco companies were immune from antitrust liability under both the Noerr Pennington and Parker immunity doctrines. We agree they are immune under the Noerr Pennington doctrine but not under the Parker doctrine. We will affirm. Are cigarette manufacturers who were original signatories to the Multistate Settlement Agreement. They are collectively known as the major tobacco companies or the Majors. The Majors are responsible for 98% of cigarette sales in the United States. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-8899.man.html">KOBATAKE V. DUPONT DE NEMOURS (12/3/1998, NO. 97-8899)<BR></A><BR> Senior Circuit Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> The judgement in this case is affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough and well reasoned order filed on July 18. Senior District Judge:</P> <P> These related actions are before the court on defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints in both litigations. Plaintiffs rely on the same legal theories in both cases to counter defendants' argument.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </P> <P> Plaintiffs are nursery owners whose plants were allegedly damaged by Benlate 50DF. While the jury was deliberating. (3) any and all claims which might have been alleged. Or which were alleged. Which provide that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9B0A55634A78267788256E35007C151D/$file/0255797.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The USENET.1 Because AOL provides its subscribers access to the USENET is an abbreviation of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3411_018.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We affirm all the rulings except that we find that judgment as a matter of law should have been entered in Cingular's favor on Kempner's tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claim because the evidence in this case reveals that Cingular did nothing more to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/04/001437P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Identifying that the concrete problems in the parking lot were caused by: 1) insufficient subgrade support. Norwalk's cross petition alleged that B D Construction and the subcontractor were responsible 2 for the parking lot's design and for the addition of water to the mix at the time Norwalk supplied the concrete.1 Travelers denied the claim on the basis that there was no coverage under either policy. 500 and was dismissed with prejudice from the state court proceedings after incurring nearly $130. Arguing in support that the damage to the parking lot either was not covered or. Was excluded by the policies sued on. Travelers is obligated to defend and indemnify Norwalk for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/99-14858.man.html">GROUPE CHEGARAY/V. DE CHALUS V. P&O CONTAINERS (5/24/2001, NO. 99-14858)<BR></A><BR> All but two of which were wrapped onto a total of 42 pallets. We affirm in part and reverse in part.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="439"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1994/94a0863p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Beekhuis was an officer. The site was sold to Brandywine Chemical. Because the site was contaminated with various chemicals. Witco's claim against Jeanne Beekhuis is in her representative capacity as executrix of the estate of Dr. Its claim against WTC is in its capacity of trustee. The district court entered two orders which are at issue in this appeal. The district court held that the Estate was entitled to statutory indemnification from Witco. The former is whether the three year statute of limitations established by Congress for contribution claims under CERCLA preempts state nonclaim statutes that govern the administration of decedents' estates. The latter issue is whether under CERCLA an estate of a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/23BD0A16D9ED890A88256C840006015B/$file/9915185.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There is not much dispute. Where there is. The facts are of course taken favorably to the verdict.3 On October 9. The driveway is sloped. The truck was parked on the slope This decision had to await the Supreme Court's decision in Cooper Industries. The Whites' three year old son Walter was playing outside. The Whites' theory of the case was that Walter pulled or kicked it out of first gear into neutral. The gearshift lever is a long stalk sticking up from the floor. So Walter may have been clambering after his lost piggy bank. The parking brake didn't hold the truck after it was shifted from first to neutral. The plaintiffs' theory of the case was that the parking brake let go despite being set. Ford knew the parking brake was prone to failure. He wouldn't have parked his truck on a slope. He would have brought the truck in immediately to be fixed. FORD MOTOR CO. 7 Ford offered alternative theories of how the accident could have occurred. One was that Mr. If this is how the accident occurred. That the parking brake sometimes allowed trucks to roll despite being engaged and that Ford should have warned its customers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0473a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court opined that even if the low fare or leisure passenger market were the appropriate market. When the evidence is considered in a light most favorable to Spirit. As is required in this context. The market in the two relevant geographic routes was highly concentrated. The barriers to entry were high. Spirit's primary routes were point to point flights between Detroit Atlantic City and. Spirit targeted local leisure or price sensitive passengers whose travel is generally discretionary. We are required to view the factual record in a light most favorable to Spirit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/BBBA3E07A548B01B88256D57007097DA/$file/9915185.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows. The petition for rehearing is denied. There is not much dispute. Where there is. The facts are of course taken favorably to the verdict.3 On October 9. The driveway is sloped. The truck was parked on the slope pointing downhill. The Whites' three year old son Walter was playing outside. The Whites' theory of the case was that Walter pulled or kicked it out of first gear into neutral. The gearshift lever is a long stalk sticking up from the floor. So Walter may have been clambering after his lost piggy bank. The parking brake didn't hold the truck after it was shifted from first to neutral. The plaintiffs' theory of the case was that the parking brake let go despite being set. Ford knew the parking brake was prone to failure. He wouldn't have parked his truck on a slope. He would have brought the truck in immediately to be fixed. Ford offered alternative theories of how the accident could have occurred. One was that Mr. If this is how the accident occurred. That the parking brake sometimes allowed trucks to roll despite being engaged and that Ford should have warned its customers. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2NDFfYW1vcG4ucGRm/03-7641_amopn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Third party payor organizations that provide medical benefits for their members which are used to purchase the drug. The plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint based on its conclusion that the settlement agreement was not a violation of antitrust law and that the plaintiffs did not suffer antitrust injury as a result of the alleged violation. Arising out of circumstances surrounding a lawsuit in which a drug manufacturer alleged that its patent for the drug tamoxifen citrate ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1200.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is the usual way the owner of a construction project protects itself against losses caused by contractor negligence. The purpose of a commercial general liability policy is to protect the insured from liability for damages when his own defective work or product damages someone else's property. Damage to an insured's own work resulting from his faulty workmanship on it is usually covered by a performance bond. The rationale for such exclusions is that faulty workmanship is not an insurable `fortuitous event. Repaired or replaced because `your work' was incorrectly performed on it. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0437p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court opined that even if the low fare or leisure passenger market were the appropriate market. When the evidence is considered in a light most favorable to Spirit. As is required in this context. Northwest's prices were below its relevant costs for these routes. The market in the two relevant geographic routes was highly concentrated. The barriers to entry were high. Spirit's primary routes were point to point flights between Detroit Atlantic City and. Spirit targeted local leisure or price sensitive passengers whose travel is generally discretionary. We are required to view the factual record in a light most favorable to Spirit. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/11/061324P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The heater was essentially comprised of a cabinet that contained an internal combustion chamber. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1997/97a1569p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The purpose of this rule is to give top corporate managers an incentive to use available corporate funds for the payment of wages and benefits rather than for some other purpose. The issue raised by this case is what happens when their company files a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and the employees seek to recover from the corporate managers for unpaid vacation and retirement benefits that were allegedly earned in the pre petition period. Is whether. The company's managers have no discretion to order payment of the amounts owed to the employees. I. The Shenango Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/971240P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="437"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966645.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The government also notes that pollutants from Olin's operations have appeared off site. He may require the Attorney General of the United States to secure such relief as may be necessary to abate such a danger or threat and the district court ... shall have jurisdiction to grant such relief as the public interest and the equities of the case may require. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/053147P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> At issue is the cost the United States has incurred in its environmental cleanup efforts at the Vertac Chemical Plant site in Jacksonville. This opinion will address the relevant portions of each. We will use Uniroyal throughout this opinion. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 32 1 The Jacksonville site was originally developed by the federal government in the 1930s as a munitions factory. The site was sold to Reasor Hill Corporation (Reasor Hill). 4 D) creates a toxic byproduct that is now viewed as hazardous to humans. Other wastes were stored in drums stacked in a field on the site. 5 T that was used in Vietnam to clear jungle undergrowth. Hercules's practice was to place any contaminated soil into the drum. We will refer to both corporations as Vertac. 5 3 produced waste that was free of dioxins. The samples were later sent to Wright State University and Monsanto Company for testing. There were nearly 29. Some drums were labeled T waste. Some were marked T and D. Some were not marked at all. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/032572np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the amount of the indemnification was not subject to the $10 million deductible or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/03/971412P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude the contract claim is governed by the Uniform Commercial Code and time barred. The fraud claim is barred by Minnesota's economic loss doctrine. The constructive fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims are without merit. The new Whirlpool line was beset with product problems. The test [for mixed contracts is] whether their predominant factor. Is the rendition of service. Contract with artist for painting) or is a transaction of sale. Most courts have concluded that contracts for the distribution of goods are governed by Article 2. 525 n.3 (8th Cir. 1980). 3 2 We agree with the district court that the predominant purpose of AKA's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/06/951597P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On Lloyd's claim for insurance proceeds to cover the replacement cost of certain equipment that was destroyed by a fire on Lloyd's property while being installed by Federal's insured. 1995). argues that the district court erred in holding that (1) the loss of property was covered by the policy Federal issued to Versa (the Federal policy) even though the risk of loss had passed from Versa 2 to Lloyd. (2) Federal's share of the insurance liability was 83%. Background The background facts are stated in detail in the magistrate judge's order dated June 7. On The following is a brief summary of the facts. Before installation was complete. They were damaged or destroyed in a fire at the Lloyd distribution facility. The Federal policy insuring Versa was in The Federal policy contained an effect at the time of the fire. Which was in effect at the time of the fire and undisputedly covered Lloyd's loss.1 Lloyd brought the present action in federal district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The conveyor subsystems were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/032572np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the amount of the indemnification was not subject to the $10 million deductible or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Part II (Adverse Employment Action) of the majority opinion was joined by BOGGS. Part IV (Punitive Damages) was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by BOGGS. We decide that a thirty seven day suspension without pay constitutes an adverse employment action regardless of whether the suspension is followed by a reinstatement with back pay. In which position Ellis earned more pay than he would have if he had continued working in the forklift position. White was the only female working in the Maintenance of Way department at the Tennessee Yard. White's immediate supervisor was foreman Bill Joiner. He also admitted that he did not believe that the Maintenance of Way department was an appropriate place for women to work. Joiner repeatedly expressed this belief to her while she was working under his supervision. Another Burlington Northern employee agreed at trial that there was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="435"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/991041.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We do not address the district court's rulings on the contribution claims because they have been rendered moot by the 2 entry of a consent decree resolving the liability of Carroll and CCO to the United States. Which is located in Wilmington. (Although it is occasionally awkward. Lead is a hazardous substance subject to cleanup under CERCLA. The EPA has also discovered that some of the piping that runs throughout the property is lead contaminated. There is no evidence in the record of any subsequent party using or processing lead at the property. Any material remaining in the other tanks was either sold to the new operator of the 3 property or subsequently transferred to another Axel controlled facility. Explaining that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613677.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was also named as a defendant in this action and appears as a party in the caption of this appeal. That decision is not challenged by Optimum on appeal. Is therefore deemed waived. 1320 n.14 (11th Cir. 2004) ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="432"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116782.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the dismissal was in error. Historical Background The underlying case is result of an order by the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation. Sitting by designation. 2 * details of the underlying claims are not of significance to the disposition of the appeal before us. It is enough to observe that. Or fear that they will contract. Union Carbide Chemical & Plastics Co. 3 After the modifications were publicized to class members. After the settlement was restructured to take account of Dow Corning's bankruptcy filing. The participating implant manufacturers are referred to collectively as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200512204.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> There is an additional attempt to prove coverage under three insurance policies. AGLC was the most recent previous owner of the St. Augustine manufactured gas plant ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053355np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We will therefore affirm in part. We will provide only a brief sketch of this case's facts. It was a Fourth of July weekend. Irene Knoster was driving home from a family picnic in her 1993 Ford Taurus. Was in the front passenger seat. Knoster's injuries were fatal. The core of the parties' dispute was the cause of the Taurus's acceleration. Their theory was that the vehicle's electronic engine controls produced transient electrical signals capable of activating the cruise control and opening the throttle 3 without any driver input. After it was over. Ford argued that the Knosters' story is physically impossible. It must have done so because Mrs. Intermittent failures would have to occur simultaneously to cause throttle opening in a way that would be difficult to detect after the incident. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-1371_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Believing that Cummins was not making </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr1996/96a1287p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Have standing to bring an antitrust action against the sellers of the photocopies. We hold that such clients lack standing to bring a treble damages claim because they are not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1764.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Was on brief for appellee. This is an appeal by Amalgamated Cotton Garment and Allied Industries Fund and its Trustees. Also before this Court are several procedural and jurisdictional issues. Holding that the partial summary judgment is appealable as an injunction. A cursory review of the background and facts leading to the summary judgment is all that is needed to discuss the preliminary issues. The relevant facts will be outlined in turn. 1. The Fund The Fund is the sponsor of a multi employer. It was created pursuant to an Agreement and Declaration of Trust. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2001/99-4375.man.html">FISHMAN & TOBIN, INC. V. TROPICAL SHIPPING & CONSTR. CO. (1/31/2001, NO. 99-4375)<BR></A><BR> Since the term is not defined in the statute. We now affirm the district court's ruling on the matter.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19994375.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Since the term is not defined in the statute. BACKGROUND Fishman and MacClenny are two out of a number of American clothing manufacturers who have their clothing assembled in Santiago. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011104.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> TOYOTA MOTOR SALES Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Alleging that the airbag system in his 1995 Toyota Tacoma pickup truck was defective. I. Plaintiff Douglas Wilder alleges he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on January 28. In which his 1995 Toyota Tacoma pickup truck was forced off the road. Wilder was wearing his seat belt and shoulder harness. Was not injured when the vehicle came to rest. Claiming that he was severely injured when the truck's airbag deployed several minutes after the truck was involved in a collision. Because the collision was of sufficient force to cause the airbag to deploy immediately. Wilder claimed that there was a defect in the airbag system. Wilder asserted three theories of liability: (1) breach of the implied warranty that the truck and airbag driver restraint system were safe and suitable for their intended uses. There was no direct evidence of a defect. The court determined that Wilder was attempting to rely upon an unexplained malfunction to prove his case. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1618.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were Matthew W. With him on the brief were John M. With him on the brief were James M. Of counsel were Rodney G. The central questions before the Commission were whether: (1) the cameras were first sold abroad (making their refurbishment infringing regardless of whether they were repaired or reconstructed). Fuji challenges the order on the ground that the Commission erred in finding that certain of Jazz's lensfitted film packages ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19994375.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Since the term is not defined in the statute. BACKGROUND Fishman and MacClenny are two out of a number of American clothing manufacturers who have their clothing assembled in Santiago. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/15BEFA65563B6BD588256C790002D4BD/$file/0115387.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which they are in a habit of doing. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-4051.htm">96-4051 -- COPIER V. SMITH & WESSON CORP. -- 03/10/1998<BR></A><BR> The district judge's views on the insufficiency of the complaint were expressed in his unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Order. We affirm the judgment of the district court and decline to certify the question. <p align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2001/99-4375.man.html">FISHMAN & TOBIN, INC. V. TROPICAL SHIPPING & CONSTR. CO. (1/31/2001, NO. 99-4375)<BR></A><BR> Since the term is not defined in the statute. We now affirm the district court's ruling on the matter.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-5200.htm">96-5200 -- BLANKE V. ALEXANDER -- 08/05/1998<BR></A><BR> Judgment was entered for them on September 26. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/01opinions/01-7115a.html">EMPAGRAN S.A., ET AL V. F. HOFFMAN-LAROCHE<BR></A><BR> Gallagher argued the cause for appellants.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the briefs was Michael D. Duggan argued the cause for appellees.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were Arthur F. Circuit Judge:<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The action in this case was filed under section 1 of the Sherman Act. Because the injuries plaintiffs sought to re dress were allegedly sustained in transactions that lack any direct connection to United States commerce.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The District Court granted the motion to dismiss and appellants now appeal. <br clear=all style='page break before:always'> <span style='mso spacerun:yes'>     </span>This appeal requires us to interpret the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (". On domestic or foreign United States commerce.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>And s 6a(2) of FTAIA provides that the antitrust laws are inapplicable unless the effect of extraterritorial conduct on United States commerce ". </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054708p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were both </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="430"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200301/01-7115a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs was Michael D. With him on the brief were Arthur F. Circuit Judge: The action in this case was filed under section 1 of the Sherman Act. Because the injuries plaintiffs sought to re dress were allegedly sustained in transactions that lack any direct connection to United States commerce. S 6a(2) of FTAIA provides that the antitrust laws are inapplicable unless the effect of extraterritorial conduct on United States commerce </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="428"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1052.html">INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD V. MERCK<BR></A><BR> Argued for defendant appellant Merck KGaA.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Thomas H. Townsend</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>M. Of counsel was <u>Esther H. Ltd. and The Burnham Institute.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>David M. Beckwith</u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief were <u>Raphael V. Will &. Mso bidi font family: </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="428"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/08/032652P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> $4.335 million in punitive LeeBoy is the tradename of the products manufactured by B.R. I DMI is a construction equipment dealer in South Dakota. The agreement also indicated either party could terminate the agreement with </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="428"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021885.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The defendant contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to set forth any objective evidence that the product was damaged under the terms of the insurance policy and that the plaintiff cannot maintain the breach of contract claim because it failed to adhere to a two year period of limitation set forth in the insurance policy. (Edwards) is a wholesale seller of Virginia ham. (4) certification from the FDA that the meat is contaminated and cannot be sold. While Edwards was waiting for the results of the tests from Microbac. Samples of the repackaged product were also sent to Microbac Edwards & Sons notified its insurance agent of the ammonia incident on October 7. It is not clear from the record whether this would be regulated by the FDA or the USDA. The plaintiff stated in its brief that the USDA is the agency that regulates meat products. The plaintiff was informed that. The meat packer had the responsibility for assuring that the product was safe for human consumption and the USDA remained neutral until the product had been released into commerce. 1 4 EDWARDS & SONS v. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="428"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1087.html">DUNCAN MCCOY V. MITSUBOSHI<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/03/02-3394.htm">02-3394 -- MCCROY V. COASTAL MART INC. -- 03/04/2004<BR></A><BR> The facts are largely undisputed. The hot chocolate was purchased at a Coastal Mart store in Salina. Was brewed by a Primo Cappuccino Beverage Dispenser manufactured by Wilbur Curtis. <p> In its First Amended Answer and Cross Claim. The first was premised on the express language of the indemnity provision in the purchase order contract for the sale of the brewing machine. Provided that it could make the necessary factual showings demonstrating that it is entitled to indemnity. The retailers were allowed to recover indemnification from the manufacturer. . . . App. 165. <p> The case was tried to a jury pursuant to Kansas law. Marie McCroy was assessed with 50% of the blame. While her son Kristopher was assessed with 20%. Wilbur Curtis was assessed 20% at fault and Coastal Mart was assessed with 10% of the blame. <p> Following trial. Coastal Mart's supporting memorandum [for the Cross Claim Motion] was not as extensive as it could have been in citing legal authority in support of its claim for indemnification of attorney fees and expenses. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0333BD942E7EA5AA8825724C0059D92E/$file/0435182.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are precluded. As the jury was. From punishing Exxon for befouling the beautiful region where the oil was spilled. The plaintiffs' punitive damages case was saved from preemption and res judicata because the award </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7E072B3730EBC8FB88256B7D00006909/$file/0035240.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Substantial contributions were made to this opinion by the other members of the panel even though one was not in full agreement with the result reached. 4267 No. 00 35240 D.C. Circuit Judge: Robin Grant Kennedy was killed on November 5. When the helicopter he was piloting came apart in mid air and crashed. Kennedy was using the helicopter for aerial logging in Washington state. The structural failure in the helicopter was caused by a fatigue crack that developed in a component of the tail boom known as the left forward vertical fin spar. In which it granted Garlick's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against Garlick based on a finding that Garlick was not the manufacturer of the helicopter and. Bell Helicopter argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because all of the claims against it were barred by the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/July2002/012542.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Board of Trustees of the pension fund ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-5032.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were George P. With her on the brief were Eileen J. Of counsel was Ellen Page Delsole. FleetBoston elected to have the overpayment for each of those two years credited to its tax account for the immediately succeeding year. The primary question before that court and before us on appeal is whether FleetBoston must pay interest on the full extent of the deficiencies in its 1984 and 1985 tax accounts or. Whether interest on those deficiencies is suspended to the extent of FleetBoston's overpayments residing in other tax years' accounts on which the government did not pay interest to FleetBoston. Which was filed on September 13. A taxpayer that reports an overpayment of its income tax may request a refund or elect to have the reported overpayment applied to its estimated tax for the following year. 26 U.S.C. § 6402(b). The subject of such an election is known as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1554.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Argued for defendant appellee.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/00-6277.htm">00-6277 -- VITTORIA NORTH AMERICA, L.L.C. V. EURO-ASIA IMPORTS INC. -- 12/12/2001<BR></A><BR> Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="426"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1109.html">NATIONAL PRESTO V. WEST BEND<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2095.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Even though Harley Davidson was seeking the equitable remedy of rescission rather than tort damages. Its misrepresentation claim was barred under Wisconsin's economic loss doctrine. This system is designed to enhance customer satisfaction with ownership. A failure to respond is deemed an approval. Then PowerSports would have had 60 days following that rejection to file with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to determine if the rejection violated Florida law. No. 02 2095 3 dealers are required to have an on site owner operator. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0267p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is now the fourth appeal to this Court regarding an arbitration award that was finalized in 1994. This Court reversed the district court's order holding that Award Eight of the arbitrator's 11 part award is ambiguous with regard to the amounts Behr owes M & C. The Eighth Award addresses M & C's claim that the parties' contract entitles M & C to commissions on customer orders for Behr parts that were placed after Behr terminated its contract with M & C. Are due to each party from the other under that award. All of the potential products for which M & C is seeking commissions were ordered by Behr's customers more than three years after Behr terminated its contract with M & C. M & C is not entitled to commissions on these orders. They are directed to advise the Court in writing of their respective positions. The Court will enter an appropriate final judgment resolving the issue of payments owed under the contract. I BACKGROUND A complete factual background is more fully set forth in this Court's three prior published opinions. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/95opinions/95-1471.html">BIO-TECHNOLOGY V. GENENTECH<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUxMjMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-5123-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2006) The clerk is requested to correct the official caption to eliminate the additional repetition of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1294.html">ENGEL INDUSTRIES V. LOCKFORMER<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were George Raynovich. With them on the brief was A.W. Where Engel was found to not infringe the patent. Asserting that the '641 patent was invalid. That the license agreement was unlawful. Although both the '641 patent and the license agreement were found valid. That the 1985 license agreement was not an unlawful misuse of patent rights. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in part and reversed in part without being remanded. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0021a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> WILL & EMERY. WILL & EMERY. Was severely burned when the shirt that she was wearing ignited upon contact with a hot electric burner on her apartment stove.1 She brought a lawsuit against Dayton Hudson Corporation. The Minnesota based owner of the department store where the shirt was purchased. Her claims were based on allegations that (1) the shirt's design rendered it unreasonably dangerous. This case is the subject of an earlier opinion. The panel is persuaded that the earlier opinion should be withdrawn and this opinion substituted. 1 * 98 1660 Hollister v. That any duty to warn was obviated by the open and obvious nature of the alleged defect. We believe that Hollister has adduced sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that the shirt sold by Dayton Hudson was defective because of its failure to carry a warning regarding its extreme flammability. She need only establish a prima facie case that the shirt was defective and that it caused her injuries in order to pursue her claim for breach of implied warranty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/07/031520P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Arguing that the strict liability award was not permissible under Minnesota common law. That the MERA claim is moot because Viacom has entered an administrative consent order concerning the contaminated property. That the attorneys' fee award was excessive. That the prejudgment interest was excessive because Viacom had offered to settle the case. A portion of Westinghouse's business there was the repair of transformers that were insulated with Inerteen. Chlorobenzenes were used as a solvent to thin the PCBs down to a usable consistency. It was recognized that PCBs were potential carcinogens and that they were accumulating. PCBs and chlorobenzenes are classified as hazardous substances under MERLA and CERCLA. Sites contaminated with hazardous substances are subject to remediation under federal and state law. The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether PCBs were leaking from those sites and migrating off Westinghouse property. Whether the PCBs were likely to be detected by others and traced back to Westinghouse. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0300p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was a member of the panel. This case presents the question of whether a change in a rule governing the adjudication of social security disability benefits claims that is applied as of its effective date to all pending cases has an impermissibly retroactive effect. Have their primary effect on claimants' applications when the claimants appear before the agency to have their claims decided on the merits. The change in the rule is thus not impermissibly retroactive. When Combs' claim was administratively adjudicated. It was not impermissibly retroactive in its effect. The district court correctly concluded that the Agency's determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence. The five steps are as follows: In step one. The SSA identifies claimants who </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/09/00-6081.htm">00-6081 -- CITY OF PHILADELPHIA V. FLEMING CO. INC. -- 09/07/2001<BR></A><BR> 78u 4(b)(1)(2). <p> This court has not yet ruled on what is required to plead scienter in a securities fraud case that falls under the PSLRA. We find that they have not pled facts giving rise to a strong inference that Defendants intentionally or recklessly failed to disclose the pending litigation in a manner that would give rise to liability for securities fraud. Because we find that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled a primary violation of the securities laws. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="424"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1122.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were Marc R. Will & Emery. With him on the brief were Dennis J. Both parties are biotechnology companies that are engaged in gene silencing. A cell is exposed to a piece of foreign DNA that is specifically engineered to contain certain portions or copies of the target gene to be silenced. This technology is known as RNA interference ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1479.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With her on the brief were Richard L. With him on the brief was Camille L. Seeking a declaratory judgment that the two patents were invalid and unenforceable. The unfair competition and antitrust counterclaims were severed from the remainder of the case. The second case was stayed pending resolution of the patent issues. Kemin Foods is the assignee of one of the two patents in suit. Kemin Foods is the exclusive licensee of that patent. The patents in suit include process and product claims pertaining to purified lutein that is extracted from plants. Lutein is a carotenoid (i.e. Was effectively precluded from doing so by a pretrial order striking a supplemental expert report proffered by Kemin. The jury found that the asserted claims were not invalid. The jury also found that the asserted claims of the '714 patent were not infringed. 06 1002 2 that claim 1 of the '564 patent was infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. The court also rejected PIVEG's claim that both patents were unenforceable because of inequitable conduct. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1467.html">GEORGE E. WARREN CORPORATION V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Paul A. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>David M. ) paid by Warren on various imported petroleum products were ineligible for drawback refunds.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>George E. We hold the Court of International Trade did have jurisdiction. Held HMTs are not imposed ". As is required for drawback by 19 U.S.C. § . Warren exported petroleum products that were ". 1581(a) where a valid protest has been denied.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The government maintained that Warren did not have grounds to file a protest since its original drawback request did not include HMTs or ETs and was granted as to regular duties. There was no <u>valid</u> protest.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>The Court of International Trade. Held that it did have jurisdiction because Customs' denial of the protest specifying the two taxes was made on the merits and it would thus have been futile for Warren to file a second drawback request specifying HMT and ET.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span><u>Warren</u>. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0801p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We conclude that the district court erred and will vacate its judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings.[fn2] I. Mainframes and Upgrades The facts underlying this nine year old dispute are minutely detailed and quite voluminous. We will present only a brief summary here. IBM is the world's largest manufacturer of large scale mainframe computers. These machines have the capacity to process millions of records at a time and manage a tremendous volume of information. Mainframes are physically large machines. They are quite expensive. Mainframes are available in a wide range of computing capacities. One common measure of capacity is computing speed. In what is known as a MIPS upgrade. Many IBM mainframes are not purchased outright from IBM by their end users. Are instead leased through third party leasing companies such as CMI and Comdisco.[fn3] A mainframe will typically be leased to several end users during its life cycle. Then when obsolete will be scrapped. The computer will need to be reconfigured to meet the needs of the next lessee. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2220.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> It is undisputed that the human resources official who made the decision to terminate Mr. Did not even know that he was black. Because we find that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether BCI's proffered explanation for the termination is a pretext for racial discrimination. More than 60% of the 200 employees at the Albuquerque facility were Hispanic. While fewer than 2% were black. Merchandisers are hourly employees responsible for placement of <hr> Coca Cola products in retail outlets such as grocery stores. Merchandisers' schedules are staggered and they must occasionally work overtime to cover shifts. He was generally regarded as a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0137p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ford claimed that it was unaware prior to trial as to the nature of Syson's testimony. Syson stated that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1432.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> They point to other Massachusetts authority that permits a plaintiff to recover for harm caused by such behavior even though the plaintiff is not </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/95-2799.man.html">WYKE V. POLK COUNTY SCH. BD.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Wyke v. These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952799.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was so </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1998/98a2033p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The issue in this appeal is whether retailers have standing under S 43(a) of the Lanham Act. I. Appellants are a putative nationwide class of retail sellers of motor oil and other engine lubricants that purportedly compete with Slick 50. The Appellees were enjoined from disseminating false or unsubstantiated claims regarding Slick 50 and agreed to provide $10 million in discounts. Certain state consumer protection statutes that are not at issue in this appeal. At any time between the time Slick 50 was first marketed to the public and the present. Have offered for sale. The harm the Appellants allege they suffered is loss of sales of products they sell. The District Court held that only </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcxNDBfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7140_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We hold that the order certifying this punitive damages class must be vacated because there is no evidence by which the district court could ascertain the limits of either the fund or the aggregate value of punitive claims against it. Thus plaintiffs have failed to satisfy one of the presumptively necessary conditions for limited fund treatment under Ortiz v. While we expressly limit our holding to the conclusion that class certification is incompatible with Ortiz. The circumstances warrant some discussion of whether the order is incompatible with the Supreme Court's intervening decision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Are published together at In re Simon II Litigation. Will be referred to collectively as the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952799.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's § 1983 claim was so </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/03opinions/03-5092.html">FORD MOTOR CO. V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Charles J. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Peter D. Director.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel was <u>Timothy P. Mso bidi language:AR SA'>[1]</span></sup></span><![endif]></span></span></sup></span></a><span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>We conclude that Ford is entitled to recover the costs of the environmental cleanup that was required by Federal a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/05/962448P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Porchia sought to have both defendants The case held strictly liable for their respective roles as manufacturer and distributor of an allegedly unreasonably dangerous machine. proceeded to trial. Purchased the tenderizing machine in question and began utilizing it as a stand alone unit into which meat product was fed manually. Judgment was entered in favor of the two defendants on both the negligence and the strict liability claims because the jury found Smoky Hollow Foods's conduct to be the sole intervening proximate cause of Porchia's injury. Each decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Federal Rule of Evidence 407 provides that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/95-2799.man.html">WYKE V. POLK COUNTY SCH. BD.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Wyke v. These consolidated appeals raise the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1291.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 1995 is amended as follows: The coversheet should state that it is an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maine. Were on brief for appellant Smith & Nephew Dyonics. Were on brief for appellee Russell Violette. Hottentot's diagnosis was carpal tunnel syndrome. The outcome of the surgery was not as doctor and patient had hoped Violette's ulnar nerve and artery were severed. Dyonics asserted four affirmative defenses: 1) the product was designed and manufactured using techniques representing the state of the art at the time it was manufactured and sold. 2) any harm to Violette was caused entirely by the fault of third parties for which Dyonics cannot be held liable. Which was denied. Preemption The thrust of Dyonics' appeal is that provisions of the 4 Federal Food. It is simply too late. The question of waiver is controlled by a recent decision of this court. Westvaco's failure to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1408p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether a liability insurance policy's Sexually Transmitted Disease Exclusion excludes coverage for claims arising out of a gym member's expulsion from a gym due to his Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982442.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that the company failed adequately to warn of the saw's dangers and that the saw was defective. The warnings were not required to spell out all the consequences of improper use. Nor was the saw defective Hood altered and used the tool in violation of Ryobi's clear warnings. The saw was fully assembled at the time of purchase. USE OF SAW WITHOUT THIS GUARD WILL RESULT IN SERIOUS INJURY </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043379p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider primarily the following issue of law: whether we may exercise appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the denial of a motion for summary judgment on the basis that a statute of repose was inapplicable. We conclude that the District Court's order does not fall under the collateral order doctrine and will accordingly dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. That aircraft was subsequently purchased by Wendy and Michael Robinson. That claim is not at issue in this appeal. In its capacity as a manufacturer if the accident occurred 4 are entitled to bring their suit under an exception to the GARA statute of repose because Hartzell made several material (1) after the applicable limitation period beginning on (A) the date of delivery of the aircraft to its first purchaser or lessee. Or which was added to. Which is alleged to have caused such death. The purpose of that process is to ensure that the propeller has been designed and The specific exception at issue in this case is contained within section 2(b)(1) of the Act: (b) EXCEPTIONS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2240.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Were on brief. The first investor suit was filed. Computervision and the IPO underwriters were sued under Sections 11 and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="420"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200605/04-1343a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Steven H. With her on the brief were Thomas O. Melvin Goldstein was on the brief of intervenors Big West Oil. Barr were on the brief of intervenors Frontier Pipeline Company and Express Pipeline LLC. Senior Circuit Judge: Before us are petitions for review of orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requiring certain crude oil carriers to pay shippers reparations for excessive rates. The next year provided that oil pipelines were to be regulated under the version of the ICA that prevailed on October 1. All references to the ICA in this opinion are to the 1977 version. The parties agree that decisions of the ICC applying the ICA prior to the 1977 legislation are treated as if they were FERC decisions. Under which ceiling levels for pipeline rates are adjusted annually on the basis of a formula predicting annual percentage changes in industry wide pipeline costs. A single pipeline's cost reduction is unlikely to much affect the industry wide index. The original ceiling level from which this process begins is determined either by reference to the rate in effect on December 31. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043592p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are called upon to decide whether a district court has the power under the Federal Food. Because a district court's equitable powers in such a situation are broad. We hold that an order of restitution is properly within the jurisdiction of the court. Andrew Lane is the president. Three products are the subject of this action: (1) BeneFin. Whose main ingredient is arabinoxylan. Lane actively promoted BeneFin and SkinAnswer as potential treatments for cancer and that he was a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTc2OThfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7698_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cross appeals by certain plaintiffs from so much of the district court's order as * The present caption in these consolidated appeals lists as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/03-4252.htm">03-4252 -- ZOLLER LABORATORIES V. NBTY INC, -- 10/12/2004<BR></A><BR> This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiff Zoller Laboratories. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0233n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Declaratory judgment that BNFL is responsible for certain asbestos laden materials. Part of the breach of contract claim survived summary judgment and was resolved at a bench trial. This case centers around four synchronous condensers that BNFL sought to have removed from the K 792 switchyard. Some of which was wrapped in insulating material. They were constructed in the 1950*s and each weighed approximately two hundred tons. The condensers were raised approximately twenty feet from the ground on concrete platforms. After the RFP was issued. The bid amount was lower than the anticipated cost of demolition and was based in part on Coy/Superior's assessment of the salvage value of equipment and material. A contract between Coy/Superior and BNFL was executed on January 6. At the time the subcontract was executed. BNFL acknowledges that it was responsible for wastes generated and for asbestos abatement during the period that the condensers remained at the BNFL worksite. No asbestos was detected. While the condensers were still located at its Portal 10 worksite. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1596.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief. Was on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="416"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-2004.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pearlson and Robert Quinn were on brief for appellant. Luongo and Jayne Conroy were on brief for appellee. Metropolitan never 1 MHI and Metropolitan were formed to privatize the functions previously performed by the Metropolitan Housing Assistance Program of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development. 2 becomes a party to the lease. Metropolitan inspects the premises to insure that federal Housing Quality Standards are satisfied. Refrigerators are in working order. They simply note whether the paint is chipped or peeling. If no letter is on file. The landlord is told that one is required before the subsidy will be given. Many of which are based on its alleged failure to inspect adequately for lead paint before agreeing to subsidize the apartments. Ambiguities are resolved against the insurer. If </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=91-1580.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> An Order was entered on behalf of this panel denying Northbrook's petition for rehearing. Northbrook's first contention is that the panel opinion ignored </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="414"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/12/001009P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Joseph Clune was working at a construction site in Kansas City. The hoist was manufactured by Linden Alimak AB. Industrivarden Service AB ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/93-3472.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/93-3472.opa_fn.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 ></head><body><a name= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-8595.man.html">SQUISH LA FISH, INC. V. THOMCO SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC. (8/11/1998, NO. 97-8595)<BR></A><BR> Will reverse and remand.</P> <P><CENTER>I. ProPack's expertise was in blister packaging. This type of packaging was not appropriate for the Tuna Squeeze. Who was ProPack's production manager. Was also present at some of these meetings. Guinsler told both Munson and Turner that the 976 adhesive was water soluble and would easily wash off the Tuna Squeeze with warm water. Guinsler knew that ProPack was packaging the Tuna Squeeze for Squish La Fish. Guinsler's deposition testimony states he was aware that adhesive removability was an important consideration. Munson testified at his deposition that he relied on Guinsler's representations regarding the adhesive's solubility because Guinsler had expertise with adhesives and was representing 3M. Evante directed Munson to decide with Kelly Guinsler </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar97/96-8130.opa.html">LEWIS V. BRUNSWICK CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lewis v. Who died after she fell or was thrown from a boat and then struck by a Brunswick engine propeller. The Brunswick engine involved in their daughter's death was defective because it lacked a propeller guard. The district court held that the Lewises' claims were preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act. Whether the Lewises' claims are preempted by the Act.<p> As we will explain in Part VII. The preemption clause and the savings clause in the Act provide contradictory indications of congressional intent relating to whether the Lewises' claims are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that they are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that those claims are expressly saved from preemption either. Our resolution of the question of preemption in this case turns on whether the Lewises' claims are impliedly preempted by the Act. We hold that they are. Kathryn Lewis was spending the day with her boyfriend's family in a boat on Strom Thurmond Lake in Georgia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-8595.man.html">SQUISH LA FISH, INC. V. THOMCO SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC. (8/11/1998, NO. 97-8595)<BR></A><BR> Will reverse and remand.</P> <P><CENTER>I. ProPack's expertise was in blister packaging. This type of packaging was not appropriate for the Tuna Squeeze. Who was ProPack's production manager. Was also present at some of these meetings. Guinsler told both Munson and Turner that the 976 adhesive was water soluble and would easily wash off the Tuna Squeeze with warm water. Guinsler knew that ProPack was packaging the Tuna Squeeze for Squish La Fish. Guinsler's deposition testimony states he was aware that adhesive removability was an important consideration. Munson testified at his deposition that he relied on Guinsler's representations regarding the adhesive's solubility because Guinsler had expertise with adhesives and was representing 3M. Evante directed Munson to decide with Kelly Guinsler </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/08/952548P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The facts involved in this case are substantially uncontested. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1416.html">VIRGINIA V. MAC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar97/96-8130.opa.html">LEWIS V. BRUNSWICK CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lewis v. Who died after she fell or was thrown from a boat and then struck by a Brunswick engine propeller. The Brunswick engine involved in their daughter's death was defective because it lacked a propeller guard. The district court held that the Lewises' claims were preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act. Whether the Lewises' claims are preempted by the Act.<p> As we will explain in Part VII. The preemption clause and the savings clause in the Act provide contradictory indications of congressional intent relating to whether the Lewises' claims are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that they are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that those claims are expressly saved from preemption either. Our resolution of the question of preemption in this case turns on whether the Lewises' claims are impliedly preempted by the Act. We hold that they are. Kathryn Lewis was spending the day with her boyfriend's family in a boat on Strom Thurmond Lake in Georgia. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19968130.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who died after she fell or was thrown from a boat and then struck by a Brunswick engine propeller. The Brunswick engine involved in their daughter's death was defective because it lacked a propeller guard. The district court held that the Lewises' claims were preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act. Whether the Lewises' claims are preempted by the Act. As we will explain in Part VII. The preemption clause and the savings clause in the Act provide contradictory indications of congressional intent relating to whether the Lewises' claims are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that they are expressly preempted. We cannot hold that those claims are expressly saved from preemption either. Our resolution of the question of preemption in this case turns on whether the Lewises' claims are impliedly preempted by the Act. those claims conflict with the We hold that they are. Kathryn Lewis was spending the day with her boyfriend's family in a boat on Strom Thurmond Lake in Georgia. While the boat was pulling Kathryn's boyfriend on an inner tube. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="412"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1605.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sidley & Austin (as it then was) demoted 32 of its equity partners to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1925.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was on brief. Cuebas</SPAN> were on brief. With whom <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/953163P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I. Background The underlying facts are not in dispute. son died on January 30. BIC is incorporated in New York and has its principal place of business in At the time the present action was commenced. Plaintiffs and Massie were residents of the State of Missouri. filed their complaint against BIC and Massie. diversity of citizenship did not exist between the parties when plaintiffs 2 On January 11. Defendant whose liability is as seller in stream of commerce. A defendant whose liability is based solely on his status as a seller in the stream of commerce may be dismissed from a products liability claim as provided in this section. 2. Is properly before the court and from whom total recovery may be had for plaintiffs' claim. 3. The parties shall have sixty days in which to conduct discovery on the issues raised in the motion and affidavit. If the requirements of subsections 2 and 3 of this section are met. No order of dismissal under this section shall operate to divest a court of venue or jurisdiction otherwise proper at the time the action was commenced. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981716.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: While James Oglesby was leaning into the engine compartment of a seven year old Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck to adjust a transmission cable. Contending that his injuries were caused by a defective plastic hose connector between the radiator and the radiator hose. The district court also concluded that Oglesby failed to prove that the part was defective when it left General Motors' manufacturing plant and that General Motors breached its duty of care in manufacturing the product. Who was a certified mechanic. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar97/96-6645.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. OLIN CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Olin contended that CERCLA was not intended to impose liability for conduct predating the statute's enactment. 1520 21 (11th Cir.1995) (upholding Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act because legislative findings were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1278.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Were on brief for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Were on brief for appellee. Were on brief for Health Industry Manufacturers Association. The district court determined that plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/02/96-8120.htm">96-8120 -- WELLBORN V. COBRAY FIREARMS INC. -- 02/25/1998<BR></A><BR> The district court found the Daniels were protected by corporate veils and no grounds existed for piercing those veils. We reverse in part and affirm in part.<a href= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031362.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dunn maintains that he was defrauded out of more than a half million dollars on his investment in Ronbotics Corporation and that the court erred when it dismissed the claims he asserted under the Virginia Securities Act. Ronbotics Corporation is a privately held Virginia corporation founded to develop and manufacture electric motion platforms. Ronbotics was operated. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1001.html">MYCOGEN PLANT SCIENCE, INC V. MONSANTO COMPANY<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021999.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Bouchat asserts that the court erroneously failed to accord him the benefit of a statutory presumption that an infringer's revenues are entirely attributable to the infringement. The team was to leave its entire Browns identity in Cleveland. He began drawing logo designs based on the various names that the team was considering. Bouchat's Shield Drawing was found to have been mistakenly used by National Football League Properties. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Apr2001/992054.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200415341.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that Almeida's right of publicity claim under § 540.08 and common law is preempted by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5F428C53F518C12A882570270081FC1E/$file/0335386.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Defendant appellee Legacy is the non profit corporation that owns this hospital. A hospital employee analyzed Laura Fields' Pap smear and concluded that it was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200310486.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: This case arises out of an automobile collision during which eighteen monthold Dylan Edic was ejected from his child restraint system (CRS). Against the manufacturers of the CRS claiming that Dylan's ejectment was due to a defect in the CRS. They asserted that this defect had caused secondary injuries to Dylan beyond that which he would have endured from the primary collision alone. Century Products Company is a division of Graco Children's Products. Both are subsidiaries of Newell Rubbermaid. All three entities are named defendants in this suit. 2 1 * district court's evidentiary rulings. We do find that the Edics provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to infer that the CRS was defective and for a reasonable jury to conclude that these defects enhanced Dylan's injuries. Was driving his Volvo station wagon when a Pontiac driven by a non party. Dylan was no longer in the CRS. The Edics deduced that Dylan somehow had been ejected from the CRS and concluded that the cause of the ejection was a manufacturing defect in the CRS. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/04/961552P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Porous Media Corporation (Porous) and Pall Corporation (Pall) are manufacturers of industrial filters. That Pall made false and disparaging statements about Porous's filters which were not supported by Pall's own testing data. Those findings are not directly challenged in this appeal. The district court also entered an injunction against Pall which was not appealed. 24 3 2 Pall filed post trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative for a new trial. and Pall appeals. Because Porous failed to prove an element of the claim by failing to offer extrinsic evidence of customer confusion to show that Pall's statements were misleading. arguments. A. Jury instruction We reject both The trial court instructed the jury as to the elements of Porous's Lanham Act claim: The Lanham Act was substantially revised in 1988. Porous's claim for damages under the revised Lanham Act was dismissed by the district court before trial. This ruling is not appealed. The district court held that the amendments were not retroactive. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar97/96-6645.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. OLIN CORP.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Olin contended that CERCLA was not intended to impose liability for conduct predating the statute's enactment. 1520 21 (11th Cir.1995) (upholding Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act because legislative findings were </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/992853P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Perry plant is divided into three sections: the kill floor. Where hogs are killed. The sections are organized into numerous production lines. Each of which is responsible for a different facet of hog processing. The lines are composed of line workers. A utility position is usually the first step towards promotion to such management support jobs as trainer. The lines are managed by front line supervisors and general supervisors. Supervisors are managed by plant superintendents. Who are responsible for all production functions. Who is the highest level manager in the plant. The Perry plant also employs a personnel director who is responsible for addressing employee grievances. The authority to terminate employees is vested in the plant manager and the personnel director. She was dating James Madison. An African American man who was also employed at the Perry plant. The couple married in 1996 and have two children. Was a reliable worker. 3 Madison presented a great deal of evidence at trial to show that she was subjected to a continuing pattern of racial and sexual harassment during her employment and that supervisors and managers failed to take action in response to her complaints. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1495.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. Nellcor also alleged that Masimo's asserted patents were invalid on anticipation. The district court reversed the jury's verdict that the '785 patent was infringed. It upheld the jury's verdict that the `222 and `850 patents were not invalid and infringed. The district court also upheld the jury's verdict that the `830 patent was not invalid and infringed. It held that the `222 patent was not invalid for indefiniteness. The appeal was submitted for decision after oral argument on July 7. The district court's judgment is affirmed in part. If a patient moves while the sensor is attached to his finger. The development of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-4252.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1). This statement is printed in a starburst design on all bottles of ZN 3. Plainly obvious meaning: that the two products are identical. That ZN 3 is a cheaper equivalent to Zantrex 3. Zoller contends the two products are not the (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0887p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Vistek moved for judgment on the pleadings contending that the language of the indemnity provision in the lease agreement was not specific enough to overcome the immunity which Vistek. The court accepted Vistek's argument that the indemnity provision in the lease agreement was not specific enough to overcome Vistek's employer's immunity under the PWCA. We will not grant judgment on the pleadings </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1711.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Ruling that they did not have a right to enforce warranties issued by the property developer. The Facts Nabisco and AUL were warehousing partners for Nabisco's snack food products. AUL's liability for any damage to Nabisco's property was limited to $1 million per occurrence. AUL told Catellus that the warehouse was for Nabisco and that it must be suitable for the storage of retail food products. Brandonisio was supposed to use a finishing product known as Sonisil on the floor. Which are airborne chemicals that have a fragrance. Shortly after the floor finishing process was complete. Nabisco investigated and learned that the complaints were all related to products that had passed through the Illinois warehouse. Test results indicated that all Nabisco products stored in the warehouse that were wrapped in polypropylene were contaminated with aromatic hydrocarbons. Nabisco supports this argument by submitting evidence that no matter how long its products were in the warehouse. They were all contaminated by aromatic hydrocarbons. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/EAFC4B2B87D0DDE2882572AE0057DF1A/$file/0535080.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is amended as follows: 1. Insert </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="410"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep13/03-30038-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The underlying facts are not in dispute. Foster Wheeler is a multi national corporation which is principally domiciled in the United States and is engaged in a wide variety of manufacturing and shipping endeavors. Is engaged in the operation of vessels for the carriage of goods for hire. Was loaded aboard the AN NING JIANG at the port of Gijon. While the remainder of the shipment was loaded on the vessel in Tarragona. The equipment was delivered in good order to the ports of Tarragona and Gijon and loaded aboard the AN NING JIANG. Foster Wheeler and IMC were the only parties remaining in this litigation. A third party defendant were dismissed from the suit prior to the district court's entry of final judgment. 3 2 See 46 U.S.C. Section 1304(5) of COGSA provides in relevant part: Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with the transportation of goods in an amount exceeding $500 per package ... unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading . . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19969157.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The essence of Kason's complaint is that CHG produced and marketed hardware nearly identical to that which Kason produces and sells. Inc. is a distributor of CHG's products. Kason's 533D latch is a snap action chrome finished latch and handle used on commercial refrigerators. It was Kason's most popular item for the first fifteen years of its manufacture. Is unclear from the district court's opinion and the record. Estimated that in 1995 sixty to seventy percent of 533D latches were sold in the replacement market. Is the OEM market. The district court's disposal of Kason's non Lanham Act claims is a bit unclear. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011305.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The IRS assessed additional gift taxes on the grounds that Armstrong undervalued the stock when the original gift taxes were paid. So </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011359.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Claiming that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment because of her sex and age and in retaliation for her complaints of such discrimination. I. Ethel Hill was hired by Lockheed as an aircraft sheet metal mechanic in 1987. Thomas Prickett was Lockheed's program manager in charge of the contract field teams and Archie Griffin was the East Coast senior site supervisor for Lockheed. They were rarely present at the individual military jobsites. Hill and the other aircraft mechanics were directly supervised by a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/45814D6321BF8DA888256B5D005D4500/$file/0056559.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021718.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is a manufacturer of specialty motor vehicles. Among the replicars it manufactures and promotes for sale are race cars and roadsters modeled after the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1380.html">DIVERSEY LEVER INC. V. ECOLAB INC.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief were <U>Ira B. Also on the brief was <U>Robert A. On the brief were <U>Douglas J. Of counsel were <U>Thomas N. Both patents are directed to methods of inhibiting stress cracking in the plastic (polyethylene terephthalate. The resulting settlement agreement and an accompanying consent judgment were executed in July 1993. </P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031108.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Dealers are CLM Equipment Company. Are Volvo Construction Equipment North America. Champion Road Machinery Limited ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/987552.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The question is whether the advertising converts the theft into </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTcyNDdfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-7247_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Agents until full payment is made. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1014.html">INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER CORPORATION V. IXYS CORPORATION<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff <span class=SpellE>appellee</span>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief was <u>David E. <span class=SpellE>Killough</span></u>.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Of counsel on the brief was <u>Glenn W. <span class=SpellE>Trost</span></u>. Argued for defendant appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the brief were <u>Nancy L. Line height:200%'>The issue in this case is whether the injunction granted the patentee is overly broad. What is the proper remedy.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>International Rectifier Corporation ( IR ) is the assignee of U.S. We vacate the injunction and remand for the district court to issue an injunction of proper scope.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>Since IXYS had withdrawn its affirmative defenses relating to the validity and enforceability of the patent before judgment was entered. That part of the court s decision is affirmed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoBodyTextIndent2 align=center style='text align:center. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B4EF4058496AF3AB88257170007CD791/$file/0356559.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We are asked to determine whether the Sheriff's Department's conduct constituted copyright infringement. The wrinkle in this otherwise smooth question is that. Although the software was installed onto 6. The computers were configured such that the total number of workstations able to access the installed software did not exceed the total number of licenses the Sheriff's Department purchased. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and hold that such copying constitutes copyright infringement despite the Sheriff's Department's configuration. RUMBA Office is the more expensive and more powerful computer program. The Sheriff's Department soon realized that this process was too time consuming and would delay opening the Twin Towers. It was not clear where those employees who would need to use RUMBA programs would be assigned to work. To speed up the process of installation and to ensure that employees would be able to use the RUMBA software regardless of where they were assigned. This was done by simultaneously copying the entire contents of a single </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="406"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1088r.html">GART V. LOGITECH<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july99/98-9069.opn.html">SCI LIQUIDATING CORP. V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. (7/20/1999, NO. 98-9069)<BR></A><BR> SCI Liquidating Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966084.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Pegram was made Vice President of Purchasing and Material Management for Comptronix. Pegram was also issued 869. Limited is a company owned by Philip Choy and on behalf of which Choy traded his Comptronix stock. A default judgment was entered against Magatronic on November 30. Pegram was removed from his position as Vice President of Purchasing and Material Management and made Vice President of Marketing. Who was at that time the Chairman and CEO of Comptronix. Seeking a declaratory judgment and damages.2 Immediately after Pegram's complaint was filed. Pegram was eventually terminated in December 1989. Management expects that sales and earnings for the second half of 1989 will be lower than previously anticipated. Pegram contends that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july99/98-9069.opn.html">SCI LIQUIDATING CORP. V. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. (7/20/1999, NO. 98-9069)<BR></A><BR> SCI Liquidating Corporation ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/93-5113.opa.html">SOUTH FLA. WATER MNGMT. DIST. V. MONTALVO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>South Fla. We are asked to define the limits of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/033191P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Farm Credit sent Farm Fresh a letter informing Farm Fresh that Farm Credit was financing Reece's production costs. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/93-5113.opa.html">SOUTH FLA. WATER MNGMT. DIST. V. MONTALVO<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>South Fla. We are asked to define the limits of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar98/96-6084.man.html">SEC V. ADLER (3/27/1998, NO. 96-6084)<BR></A><BR> Pegram was made Vice President of Purchasing and Material Management for Comptronix. Pegram was also issued 869. Pegram was removed from his position as Vice President of Purchasing and Material Management and made Vice President of Marketing. Who was at that time the Chairman and CEO of Comptronix. Seeking a declaratory judgment and damages.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-4007.htm">97-4007 -- UTAH FOAM PRODUCTS CO. V. UPJOHN CO. -- 09/04/1998<BR></A><BR> Found that the competitor was able to offer the product to Utah Foam at a lower price than that charged by Upjohn. <p> In July. Because PAPI 135 was not of like grade and quality to PAPI 27. Thus they were irrelevant to Utah Foam's claims. We held that they were barred from doing so under <u>Donovan</u>. <u>See</u> <u>id.</u><strong> </strong>In short. The well established rule is that acceptance of remittitur of damages effectively waives the right to appeal any issue pertaining to the causes of action covered by the remittitur offer. <u>See</u> <u>Denholm</u>. 322 (5th Cir. 1985) (because punitive damages and compensatory damages based upon same cause of action are </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5026a.html">BROWN JAMES E. V. SECY ARMY<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/00/03/983732P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was tried to a jury for ten weeks. A verdict was returned in favor of the boat builders for $44. Post trial motions were filed by both sides. Judgment was eventually entered for the boat builders in the amount of $133. They are located in various states. An additional party plaintiff is an Illinois buying cooperative composed of recreational boat manufacturers. 32 1 Brunswick's motion for judgment as a matter of law on its counterclaim. Neither side contests the finding of the jury that the relevant market is the market for inboard and stern drive marine engines. Since the early 1980s there have been a number of manufacturers in the market. Stern drive engines are used primarily in recreational power boats known as runabouts. Which are typical water skiing boats. Which are larger and more expensive boats and usually have cabins. The market share requirements were reduced so that the maximum 3% discount could be earned by buying 70% from Brunswick. Another feature was added to the program in 1989 to offer long term discounts of an additional 1 or 2% to anyone who signed a market share agreement for two to three years.3 Boat builders also could receive a volume discount of up to 5% based on the quantity of engines purchased. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar98/96-6084.man.html">SEC V. ADLER (3/27/1998, NO. 96-6084)<BR></A><BR> Pegram was made Vice President of Purchasing and Material Management for Comptronix. Pegram was also issued 869. Pegram was removed from his position as Vice President of Purchasing and Material Management and made Vice President of Marketing. Who was at that time the Chairman and CEO of Comptronix. Seeking a declaratory judgment and damages.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="404"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19966084.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Limited is a company owned by Philip Choy and on behalf of which Choy traded his Comptronix stock. A default judgment was entered against Magatronic on November 30. Pegram was made Vice President of Purchasing and Material Management for Comptronix. Pegram was also issued 869. Pegram was removed from his position as Vice President of Purchasing and Material Management and made Vice President of Marketing. Who was at that time the Chairman and CEO of Comptronix. Seeking a declaratory judgment and damages.2 Immediately after Pegram's complaint was filed. Pegram was eventually terminated in December 1989. That Hebding had tortiously interfered with Pegram's employment contract. 2 will be lower than previously anticipated. Pegram contends that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/02/973735P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Firefighters were called to the town house of Bonnie Weisgram in Fargo. The front door of the residence was open (although the storm door was closed). Which adjoined the bathroom where the body was found. The cover of the smoke detector located in the ceiling of the upstairs hallway had been removed and was found on the carpeted floor of Weisgram's bedroom. A folding chair was on the floor. An L shaped sectional sofa was badly damaged by fire in both sections. The back of one section of the sofa was along a metal railing that was open to the entryway and immediately to the right (north) of the entrance at about shoulder level when standing in the entryway. Was along the adjoining (east) wall upstairs. There was a hole burned through the floor of the entryway. There was structural fire damage around the entrance of the town house. That is. There is no dispute that the likely source of the carbon monoxide was the smoldering sofa. Weisgram's blood alcohol level was 0.15. There was evidence that she had taken a drug that generally is prescribed to relieve pain and as a sleep aid. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021738.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chemical crabgrass control products are most effective when applied to </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/995319.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue on appeal is whether. This case also presents the threshold issue whether we will adopt a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0346p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiff was treated for persistent pain in her neck and shoulders by her physician. Caused liver failure and Plaintiff was required to undergo a liver transplant in 1998 to save her life. The State of Michigan has adopted a drug products liability statute that immunizes drug manufacturers from liability from damages in suits contending that their drug was defective or unreasonably dangerous </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/10/033266P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who is Hispanic. Griffith complains that he was suspended and then denied retraining. As some district courts have concluded. The third step in the McDonnell Douglas analysis must be modified </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001022.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: This case is an appeal in a products liability action of the dismissal of Appellant's punitive damages claim against Appellee Duracell and the grant of Appellees' motion for summary judgment. It is unclear whether she read the warnings on the actual batteries involved in this case. Cohen was definitely aware that reversed polarity insertion was incorrect and that such incorrect insertion could result in physical injury. 2 More technically. This process of venting is known in the vernacular as a battery </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001021.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Young Sergio was thrown from a 1985 Dodge Caravan through the open liftgate and killed. Was driving the vehicle on an errand with her 8 year old daughter Maria riding in the front seat and young Sergio in the back seat. She drove through a red light and was struck in the left rear by an oncoming car traveling at 30 m.p.h. Who was not wearing a seatbelt. Was thrown through the rear liftgate that had opened during the accident. Both of whom were wearing seatbelts. Were not seriously injured. Negligent design under South Carolina law were allowed to go to the jury. The Estate asserted that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0287n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Sitting by designation. 1 * An EpiPen is a product that contains a dose of the drug epinephrine. Which is used to treat anaphylactic shock. Campbell was unable to remove the gray safety cap. While Najib was attempting to remove it. Campbell and Najib were unable to administer the shot and Najib lost consciousness while waiting for an ambulance. Campbell was able to resuscitate him. He was taken to the emergency room for treatment. Was irrelevant. Was inadmissible because it 2 would not help the trier of fact and further held that this failure to produce admissible expert testimony was fatal to his claims. Summary judgment is proper if the evidence submitted shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It did not find that his testimony would be helpful to a jury in </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/july96/95-3255.wpd.html">GARDNER V. CHRYSLER CORP.<BR></A><BR> High backed front seat upon which she was seated because it failed to provide essential protection for her in a modest rear end collision. Gardner was trajectiled into the third rear passenger seat. It is controversial whether this occurred at the moment of the collision or when the vehicle swerved into a ditch and flipped over before righting itself. There was no seat belt fastened over her to counter the trajectory. A jury determined Chrysler was not liable under either a theory of strict liability or negligence. Gardner now attacks that verdict claiming it is the product of the trial court's creation of a judicial exception to Kansas law prohibiting the introduction of the nonuse of seat belt evidence to establish fault and abnegation of its gatekeeper role in the trial process. Gardner was a front seat passenger in a 1988 Dodge Caravan (the Minivan). Two other children were seated on the rear seats. No one in the Minivan was wearing a seat belt. Gardner was found seriously injured in the third rear seat. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2049.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Laufer</SPAN> was on brief for appellant. <P> <SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1029.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.L.L.C.</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1693.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Graffam</SPAN> were on the brief for Hyundai Motor Corporation.</P> <BR WP= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="402"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1127.html">MYCOGENPLANT SCIENCE ET AL. V. MONSANTO<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiffs appellants.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-4577_013.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Dismissed this diversity personal injury suit (the substantive issues in which are governed by Wisconsin law) on the ground that without expert testimony the plaintiffs could not prove their case. The jurisdictional statement in the appellants' 2 No. 05 4577 brief states that the federal district court's jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0068p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The relief available once a violation is established. (2) whether a plaintiff can recover damages to goodwill or disgorgement of profits upon showing that an advertisement is literally false or deliberately false. Individual corporate officers who were personally involved in a Lanham Act violation are immune 26 Balance Dynamics Corp. v. Schmitt Industries 3 While it is true that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/06/053232P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="399"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/02opinions/02-1324.html">INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER CORP. V. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, LTD., ET AL.<BR></A><BR> Was <u>David E. Etc. and 03 1046.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'>  </span>With him on the briefs were <u>John W. Were <u>Mary A. Of counsel in 03 1046 was <u>Marce </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTEyNzUtY3YucGRm/05-1275-cv.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The Matteis challenge the class certification on the grounds that: [1] the class contains members who have not yet been assessed tax penalties and who (according to the Matteis) therefore lack Article III and/or statutory standing. [2] the named representatives all of whom have been assessed tax penalties do not adequately represent the interests of all class members. Some of whom have not been penalized (at least as yet). P. 23(e) in failing to provide a second opt out period when the settlement terms were finalized. Deutsche Bank argues that the district court erred in approving a provision that extinguishes any claim of a nonsettling defendant or third party against a settling defendant that directly or indirectly arises out of the tax strategies and is for recovery of amounts the nonsettling defendant or third party paid or owes to the class. While bars on claims against settling defendants for contribution and indemnity are not uncommon. Which purports to compensate a nonsettling defendant or third party for the loss of claims against the settling defendants but which fails to specify the method by which the judgment credit will be calculated. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/964871.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Mike Kazinec were all convicted of conspiracy to transport or receive stolen goods. Actually was a largescale fence who bought stolen OTC and HBA from a number of shoplifters and smalltime fences. There was evidence that only four of the defendants. Actually knew that his OTC and HBA was stolen. The government proceeded on the dubious theory that the defendants were deliberately ignorant to the true source of Thomas's OTC and HBA because Thomas's operation was </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-5046.html">CENEX V. US<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0415n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Held that Gilmore's claims were time barred under the applicable statutes of limitations. Davis (No. 05 5176) judgment in this case was improper because the evidence regarding when Gilmore's cause of action accrued under Tennessee's discovery rule presents a genuine issue of material fact. Gilmore and Davis were married in 1969. Their marriage was troubled by Davis's use of drugs. Davis was and is. Three have been performed over one million times. Gallico was a force in the publishing industry. THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL was subsequently recorded by Charlie Rich. The song was also recorded by many other artists. 2 Gilmore v. Gallico and Davis were both served notice of Gilmore's counterclaim. She felt that it was a song written by Davis. Ostensibly to inquire whether Davis was the writer of THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL. Davis was summoned to the AGMC offices on the same day. Davis couldn't imagine what his wife's divorce attorney was doing there. Then Davis was called in to Gallico's office. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1407.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which are engaged in exporting meat products and animal hides. Colorado office routinely altered export certificates issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in order to avoid obtaining replacement certificates for which the company should have paid a fee. Reasoning that Conagra's alleged </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012458.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The first class is composed of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/951938P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This case arises from an accident in which the fingers of Brian Moe's right hand were amputated when he reached into the grass chute of a lawnmower manufactured by MTD Products. Alleging that a safety device on the mower was defectively designed and that MTD had failed to warn purchasers of the design problems. Consumer The district court granted summary judgment dismissing all of the claims on the basis that they were preempted by the The Moes pled strict liability. Seventeen year old Brian Moe was mowing a neighbor's lawn using his father's walk behind. Brian was an experienced operator of the mower. He had been able to do this without injury because the mower was equipped with a safety device. That permitted the cutting blade to rotate only when the control lever on the operator handle was engaged. the release of the control lever. The fingers were severed. accident. The cutting The BBC was designed to stop the rotation of the cutting blade within three seconds of blade completely stopped rotating. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B1266C171B8838FD8825701200018908/$file/0335669.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. These mills are part of what is often called the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1676.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McCormack was on brief for appellant. With whom O'Connell and O'Connell was on brief for appellee. Once the press was equipped with the required quick change frames (not manufactured by Trueblood) and each frame was fitted with a die containing an injectable mold. After the ejection was complet ed. The console which housed the controls for the Trueblood press was located within arm's length of the press operator and had three settings. The press operator was required to use both hands to push two widely spaced buttons on the console. Which meant that the operator's hands could not be inserted into the injection or ejection areas while the press was in operation. The </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-12939.op2.html">INT'L SALES & SERV. V. AUSTRAL INSULATED PRODUCTS (7/30/2001, NO. 99-12939)<BR></A><BR> We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/01-5011.htm">01-5011 -- IDG, INC. V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY -- 12/26/2001<BR></A><BR> These policies provided liability and defense coverage in the event IDG was sued for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/12/01-5011a.htm">01-5011A -- IDG INC. V. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. -- 12/26/2001<BR></A><BR> Is a member of the firm of Winstead. These policies provided liability and defense coverage in the event IDG was sued for </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/98opinions/98-1081.html">GRAIN PROCESSING CORP. V. AMERICAN MAIZE-PRODUCTS CO.<BR></A><BR> With him on the brief was Marc L. With him on the brief were Nicholas N. 1997) (nonprecedential) (Grain Processing VII).<p> The district court found that American Maize proved that a noninfringing substitute was available. The court found further that this substitute was acceptable to all purchasers of the infringing product and concluded that American Maize rebutted the inference of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-4283.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> TACHA. I. BACKGROUND John and Joan Miller were injured in a car accident caused by Arthur Valle. The Millers assert that the Government is liable for damages under the FTCA for negligently serving alcohol to Mr. Arguing that the Dramshop Act is a strict liability statute and therefore not within the scope of the FTCA's immunity waiver. The Utah Supreme Court held that Utah's Dramshop Act is a strict liability statute. The court explained that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FFF28E68F4D95C8C882572F300826DA5/$file/0655054.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We address whether this generic advertising is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200611105.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is detailed herein. Irwin's yield spread premium payments were illegal under RESPA. We conclude that two exceptions to the law of the case doctrine apply and that the district court acted properly in applying HUD's test for liability to the facts of appellants' case and in concluding that Irwin was entitled to summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND This is the fourth time we have had cause to review the appellants' RESPA action against Irwin. The procedural backdrop leading to the present appeal is. Our review of this backdrop is as follows. A yield spread premium ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Sept2001/995422.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have fostered the mistaken impression that Smirnoff vodka is made in Russia and is the same product that was produced in Russia and sold to the czar before the Russian Revolution. Holding that the plaintiffs had failed to present a case or controversy that was ripe for decision within the meaning of Article III of the United States Constitution and that. Even if the plaintiffs' claims were ripe. Perhaps the greatest recognition he received was being named the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/aug97/96-4034.wpd.html">MESA OIL, INC. V. INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA<BR></A><BR> This is a diversity case involving a dispute over insurance coverage. While it was insured by INA. Ekotek's facility in Utah was subsequently declared a Superfund site. Mesa was identified by the EPA as a Potentially Responsible Party ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042035p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2005) Judge Chertoff heard oral argument in this case but resigned prior to the time the opinion was filed. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Judgment was entered against PBA in the underlying class action. Held the bad faith claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Cinski </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/08/054459P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 1 I Forest is a Missouri corporation serving as a broker of packaging materials. We will no longer use Forest Products Industries as our representative to ConAgra Frozen Food. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2338.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Flom LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellants.</SPAN> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-12939.op2.html">INT'L SALES & SERV. V. AUSTRAL INSULATED PRODUCTS (7/30/2001, NO. 99-12939)<BR></A><BR> We affirm.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/87B3E45CA16F079288257172007818E4/$file/0350608.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lo contends that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal and that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdicts. We hold that we do have jurisdiction to consider the Government's appeal and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdicts. Because there was no evidence that he conspired with anyone besides government agents. LO 5453 that there was sufficient evidence that Lo conspired with Kuan to achieve all four of the charged objects of the conspiracy and that Lo's conviction may be based on this evidence even though the jury acquitted Kuan of conspiracy. That it was therefore error for him to be subject to the mandatory minimum sentences contained in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). We reject this argument and hold that Lo is subject to those mandatory minimum sentences. That Lo is entitled to a limited remand for sentencing purposes pursuant to United States v. 4 methylenedioxyphenyl 2 propanone ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/96opinions/96-1145.html">COCHRAN CONSULTING V. UWATEC<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct2000/994024.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Reasoning that the funds' injuries were too remote from. We hold that because the hospitals' damages are too speculative and their injuries are too remote from the tobacco companies' alleged wrongdoing. Proximate cause is lacking. Thus the hospitals do not have standing to sue. I. Factual Background and Procedural History The appellants are sixteen charitable not for profit Pennsylvania hospitals (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1496.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellant. Kaufman and Ropes & Gray were on brief for appellee. The court should not have directed a verdict on the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0048p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> (2) Moog is liable for TSS's breach of contract under a veil piercing theory. (3) Moog is liable for tortious interference with the contract between TSS and SKI. This is an action in diversity. The breach of contract claim is governed by Japanese law. The other claims are governed by Michigan law. All three companies were involved in the business of servo valves. A servo valve is an electro hydraulically controlled mechanism used in such products as flight simulators. Moog is a large international distributor of servo valves. Moog servo valves were a substitute for TSS servo valves. Moog learned that SKI was TSS's largest foreign customer. Which were renewed automatically unless the other party gave notice to the contrary. The Agreement was dated February 8. Inc is the parent of a wholly owned subsidiary. Which is incorporated in Japan. Inc. and Moog Japan are collectively referred to as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200214131.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The issue is whether Siemens's refusal to sell or license patented or copyrighted goods to the appellants is an illegal use of monopoly power in a secondary market. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="397"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/991324.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Enough is Enough. In which the Court held that our decision affirming the District Court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971808.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Chief Judge: This case is a study in the tensions that can beset the franchisorfranchisee relationship. Defendants maintain that the suit was erroneously certified as a class action and challenge several other legal rulings by the district court. Deprived defendants of a fair trial on the precise issue of contractual breach that is properly the focus of this case. I. The plaintiff class consisted of </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0033p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> I The land in question is approximately 150 contiguous acres of real estate in three parcels. I would hold that the facility is limited to Parcel 1. Based on the divisibility of the property into natural units and the admission that no contamination was found outside of Parcel 1. Thus I would hold that the lien is proper only as it pertains to Parcel 1. Va. 1994) (stating that what </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/93-3212.opa.html">CHRISTOPHER V. CUTTER LABORATORIES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Christopher v. Plaintiffs claimed that Jason was infected with the HIV virus by an infusion of Armour's concentrate in late 1983. Factorate is a biologic. It is available only by prescription through a physician. Steps that should be taken if they occur. <i>The labeling shall be revised to include a warning as soon as there is reasonable evidence of an association of a serious hazard with a drug. A causal relationship need not have been proved.</i><p> <p> <i>Id.</i> (emphasis added).<p> <p> 21 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Mar2002/001589.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> In these proceedings Hydro contests the finding of liability while Doyle contends that the ARB should have awarded him a tax enhancement to compensate for the burden of receiving a lump sum award of back pay. We will grant Hydro's petition. We will dismiss Doyle's petition as moot. Factual History The factual synopsis we detail below is not controverted. The pay rate for this job was to be modest. Their clients for whom the investigation is being performed and any organization listed above furnishing or receiving any information pertaining to me from any and all liability or claim as results [sic] of furnishing or receiving such information pursuant to this authorization. Hydro Nuclear Services is authorized to utilize the information it obtains for the purpose of evaluation. Doyle's concern largely was attributable to his belief that his former employer. Implicitly was included in the release. [Hydro] in requiring all employees including[Doyle] to sign its release was exercising an essential step in performing its duty of responsible investigation and screening of employees. 6 JA at 10 11. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/98-3219.htm">98-3219 -- MORRISON ENTERPRISES V. MCSHARES INC. -- 08/01/2002<BR></A><BR> We conclude that the district court failed to grant plaintiff a presumption to which he was entitled under CERCLA. Is a general partnership that owns land in Salina. Is the successor in interest to Research Products Company. In November 1963 there was a spill of liquid grain fumigants on the Morrison property when a McShares employee was preparing to unload fumigant for delivery to Morrison. <p> In 1988 the Kansas Department of Health and Environment ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/991893.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="393"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/93-3212.opa.html">CHRISTOPHER V. CUTTER LABORATORIES<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Christopher v. Plaintiffs claimed that Jason was infected with the HIV virus by an infusion of Armour's concentrate in late 1983. Factorate is a biologic. It is available only by prescription through a physician. Steps that should be taken if they occur. <i>The labeling shall be revised to include a warning as soon as there is reasonable evidence of an association of a serious hazard with a drug. A causal relationship need not have been proved.</i><p> <p> <i>Id.</i> (emphasis added).<p> <p> 21 C.F.R. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021351.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Concluding that SLU's contribution claims were barred by principles of collateral estoppel. Was liable in contribution to SLU. The Vaccine There are three types of poliomyelitis. An oral polio vaccine ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/99/99-3777.TXT">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Events were set in motion in August and September 1991. The old tunnels have found new uses. Deterioration could have been stopped if the damage had been detected during inspections and the roof shored up pending repairs. Navigation on the River was halted for about a month while the tunnel was repaired. As part of a settlement the City of Chicago and a class of injured parties have succeeded to Great Lakes' rights under the policies. Insurance coverage could have been simple. At the beginning of August 1991 Great Lakes was the beneficiary of three relevant policies: a primary policy with a cap of $1 million and two excess policies purchased by its corporate parent Itel Corporation. On which Great Lakes was an additional insured: a first excess policy providing $40 million in coverage. Both of these excess policies were underwritten by a consortium that for convenience we call the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0449p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The case was bifurcated into a liability phase. Which was tried in front of a jury in the fall of 1999. Which was tried by the court in January 2001. The jury found that Alpine had advertised that its air cleaning products removed over 60 separately titled but in many cases overlapping This decision was originally issued as an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7671AEBCD6866A6288257026007E57C6/$file/0256989.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> ORDER The attached amended opinion is substituted for the original opinion filed on February 2. Daou's petition for panel rehearing is denied and plaintiffs' </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1330.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Of counsel on the brief was Michael K. With him on the brief were Robert D. Of counsel on the brief was Richard McManus. The appeal was submitted for our decision after oral argument on October 4. Is barred by the retroactivity doctrine. We also affirm the trial court's award of prejudgment interest to the government because the government was entitled to receive Arriving Passenger Fee ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/03/001996P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the plaintiffs have failed to make an adequate showing on their design defect claims. Who was then twelve years old. Was shopping with her mother at the Super One grocery store. Amber's mother asked her to retrieve some Popsicles that were arranged in a Hussman spot merchandising freezer. Precisely how this happened is disputed by the deposition testimony. Amber might have merely brushed her fingers against the freezer wall or she might have been playing with the boxes of Popsicles. Amber and her mother were unable to free her hand. Amber's fingers were cherry red. The extent of Amber's injuries is disputed. Is not material for purposes of this appeal. 22 1 The spot merchandising freezers of the type at issue in this case have been manufactured and sold by Hussman since 1985. They are movable. Are powered by an electrical plug in to a 110 volt outlet. The customer is protected from frostbite by the buildup of a protective layer of frost on the sides of the freezer. The design of the freezers is regulated by the Federal Department of Health using standards issued by the American National Standards Institute. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/99-14123.man.html">FOLEY V. LUSTER (5/2/2001, NO. 99-14123)<BR></A><BR> We decide whether a state common law claim for indemnification is preempted by the Copyright Act. Whether a jury instruction was confusing. Whether the claimants in an indemnity action were required to apportion damages among defendant Luster and others that potentially played a role in the copyright infringement. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/526A379772BF5DFA88256FA500059763/$file/0335480.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a Washington timber company's claims arising from the alleged breach of a timber contract were properly dismissed on summary judgment. Ballinger was formerly the president of Balkin Enterprises. It was sold by one William Abraczinskas. We must also decide whether either of those decisions was an abuse of the district court's discretion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I Hambleton Brothers is a family owned and operated Washington timber company founded in the 1950s. Balkin Enterprises was an Oregon corporation that engaged in real estate. Hambleton Brothers's decision to enter into the timber contract was based in part on Adams's appraisal of the timber value and in part on discussions with Dale Kinsey. Hambleton Brothers did not know at the time of the contract formation that Balkin Enterprises was also paying Adams a fee for his services. Title to the FruitA </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-6141.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Krystle Rogers was killed and her passengers James Brad Dooley. Anna Christine Harper were injured when her vehicle collided with one driven by Randall Albright. Who was intoxicated. Inc. d/b/a Anheuser Busch Sales of Tulsa (which will be referred to individually and collectively as Anheuser Busch). Plaintiffs alleged that Anheuser Busch was liable under negligence and wrongful death causes of action because its employees had served beer to Albright despite his noticeable intoxication at an event that it sponsored and for which it supplied beer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm. Is in Stillwater. Advertising materials were to contain such slogans as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/002458.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was unconstitutional. The District Court viewed Coltec as seeking to escape the effects of its earlier agreements in order to benefit from the ruling in Eastern and denied Coltec's attempt to reassert its constitutional claims or to have its liability for Coal Act premiums reduced to zero. The background of the Coal Act is thoroughly reviewed in Eastern Enterprises v. Coltec was assigned 249 retirees as of February 1. The first four counts of the complaint claimed that the Act was unconstitutional as applied to them under the Fifth Amendment's takings and due process clauses because the plaintiff companies had not signed the relevant agreements. The terms were established in a contemporaneous separate written agreement (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1196.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Laura A. Because no rebuttal evidence was submitted by the patent holder. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061140p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That the right to a jury trial on state law claims brought in federal court is governed by state. Marra and DiGravio had no right to have a jury decide their PHRA claims. Is responsible for developing and operating public housing in the City of Philadelphia. Edward Marra and Albert DiGravio were both employed in supervisory positions in the Inspections Division of PHA's 3 Design and Construction Department.1 DiGravio served as a Rehabilitation Supervisor. Marra's direct supervisor was Georgette Galbreth. Are recounted below. He was responsible for arranging and overseeing the inspection of houses that had been rehabilitated by PHA to ensure compliance with all pertinent housing codes. Among the several housing inspectors who worked under Marra were DiGravio. Formal notices of appointment were sent to both Paladino and Wright but later rescinded after George Fields. Although his salary and job duties were not materially affected by the demotion. Finding that PHA had discriminated against them in violation of Title VII and the PHRA.4 Fields and three other PHA employees (no one of whom is of particular relevance to our case) were also named as defendants. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1261.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Figa & Will P.C. Of the Homeowners were awarded damages against Goodyear only. Believing that the Entran II hose was causing the leaks. Heatway filed a counterclaim alleging that the Entran II hose was defective. Between 1998 and 2000 a number of suits were filed in Colorado state and federal courts by homeowners against Goodyear. Eight of these cases were consolidated. Homeowners claimed that Goodyear was liable for the costs of removing and replacing the Entran II hose installed in their homes. Reasoning that her damages were too speculative. Damages were not appropriately apportioned to it as a nonparty at fault. Goodyear argued that the Holzwarths and Sutterley/Kilgore presented evidence and were awarded damages for future repair costs that they had not incurred and would never incur because they had already sold their homes. The district court held that Homeowners were entitled to prejudgment interest from the date on which the hydronic heating systems. Were originally installed in the Homeowners' respective homes. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1007.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Grossman</U> was on brief for Preston Trucking Company. Inc. ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200607/05-5363a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the briefs were Daniel J. With him on the brief were Peter D. Trudeau alleges that the press release is itself false and misleading. I Plaintiff Trudeau is a best selling author and producer of radio and television information commercials ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0247p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> While we agree that the PSLRA pleading standards were not well defined at the time Plaintiffs filed their complaint and note that numerous courts have granted the opportunity to replead on those grounds. 1999 Although Plaintiffs allege that the individual Defendants are liable as </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/12/012616P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The district court held that there was no evidence that Grendahl or the other defendants had obtained a credit report on Phillips by false pretenses. The court rejected Phillips's contention that he had pleaded a claim for wrongful disclosure of a consumer report and stated that such a claim would not be viable anyway because the document at issue in this case was not a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0457p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Because the district court's injunction is based entirely on the jury's verdict. I. BACKGROUND This case involves MTH's claim that Lionel misappropriated MTH's trade secrets and was unjustly enriched by that misappropriation. The parties were involved in both criminal and civil litigation in South Korea. After several individuals associated with Lionel were convicted of criminal charges. Lionel and MTH are both distributors of O gauge model trains. The model trains they distribute are scale replicas of actual trains. The trains are manufactured by a process known as zinc die casting. Which is a precise method of construction in which molten metal is injected into pre shaped molds. About 200 to 300 design drawings are required to produce each scale engine. Other subcontractors had access to all Samhongsa designs and were allowed to make and retain copies of those designs. Engine parts are numbered in the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/00908.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Was negligently designed and that Dryvit failed to warn purchasers of the product's alleged defects. Hold that certification of this class is inappropriate at this time because it is likely that individual issues necessary to adjudicate Dryvit's liability will predominate over class issues in a manner inconsistent with the dictates of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Fastrak is a stucco siding product that is installed on the exterior of a building in order to provide a water resistant shield that protects the building from weather. Applicators are usually hired by general contractors to install Fastrak on the exterior of a new building. The roof is shared between applicators. Fastrak's design is based upon the premise that a properly facesealed barrier can prevent the intrusion of water behind the siding product. The plaintiff class argues that a face sealed barrier of this sort cannot be installed correctly in the field and will inevitably lack water resistance and ability to resist applied loads. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/99-14123.man.html">FOLEY V. LUSTER (5/2/2001, NO. 99-14123)<BR></A><BR> We decide whether a state common law claim for indemnification is preempted by the Copyright Act. Whether a jury instruction was confusing. Whether the claimants in an indemnity action were required to apportion damages among defendant Luster and others that potentially played a role in the copyright infringement. BACKGROUND</CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3205_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This coverage language is clear and unambiguous. Summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the common law and statutory fraud claims was also appropriate. As there is no evidence of any false statement or deceptive act by the defendants in connection with the sale of the policy. As is relevant here. We will pay a benefit for these expenses not to exceed the Maximum Benefit shown on the Schedule. As an outpatient or in a free standing facility is eligible for this benefit. The rider's maximum benefit per Illness Period was $500. The Schedule of Benefits also indicated that there was no maximum for leukemia. Geschke was diagnosed with leukemia in March 1999. The issue is no longer material. That Monumental was declining to cover the remaining $32. The gravamen of both fraud claims is that by failing to explain that the Blood and Plasma Benefit Rider covered only the cost of blood products and not related tranfusion expenses. Compensatory damages were alleged to be </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-1490.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief was Lisa Kobialka. With him on the brief were Paul F. Of counsel on the brief was Richard M. Of counsel was Evelyn H. With him on the brief was William F. Of counsel on the brief were Guillermo E. This patent infringement action was brought by appellant PharmaStem Therapeutics. PharmaStem sued six defendants (four of which are appellees before us in this appeal). The treatment is based on the discovery that blood from a newborn infant's umbilical cord is a rich source of a type of stem cells useful for rebuilding an individual's blood and immune system after that system has been compromised by disease or a medical treatment such as chemotherapy. Stem cells are fundamental (or </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul1998/98a1913p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> This is an appeal from the approval of the settlement of a nationwide class action lawsuit against Prudential Life Insurance Company alleging deceptive sales practices affecting over 8 million claimants throughout thefifty states and the District of Columbia. The class is comprised of Prudential policyholders who allegedly were the victims of fraudulent and misleading sales practices employed by Prudential's sales force. Each cause of action is based on fraud or deceptive conduct. There are no allegations of personal injury. There are no futures classes. The relief awarded includes full compensatory damages consisting of what plaintiffs thought they were purchasing from the insurance agent. There is no cap on the amount of compensatory damages for those who qualify. Although punitive damages are not included in the settlement. Federal subject matter jurisdiction is properly grounded on the alleged violations of the federal securities laws. 6 supplemental jurisdiction is proper because all of the claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/34DA34F4B05697B988256F9C0000A68D/$file/0256989.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Plaintiffs contend that Daou fraudulently inflated the price of its stock by reporting revenues before they were earned. In The following facts are taken from plaintiffs' third amended complaint and will be assumed true for purposes of the within review. Which is used primarily to account for progress on long term projects. 40% of the contract revenue immediately after the equipment to be installed was ordered. 50% 60% of the contract revenue as soon as the equipment was configured and tested. Daou was able to acquire eleven companies. Daou executives and their respective family members were able to sell nearly 2.5 million shares for a total of $54.67 million in improper proceeds. They would not have purchased their shares. As they revealed in various disclosures that [c]ontract revenue for the development and implementation of network solutions is recognized on the percentage of completion method with progress to completion measured by labor costs incurred to date compared to total estimated labor costs. . . . </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="389"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D12BAFD84138E886882572790082A486/$file/0416688.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> McDermott Will & Emery LLP. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e). Plaintiffs alleged that women employed in Wal Mart stores: (1) are paid less than men in comparable positions. That the policies and practices underlying this discriminatory treatment are consistent throughout WalMart stores. That this discrimination is common to all women who work or have worked in Wal Mart stores. Which is estimated to include more than 1.5 million women. Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a nationwide class of women who have been subjected to WalMart's allegedly discriminatory pay and promotions policies. Who have been or may be subjected to Wal Mart's challenged pay and management track promotions policies and practices. While the class size was large. The issues were not unusual. INC. 1341 court clearly stated that its decision would be limited to procedural questions because an adjudication of the merits was not appropriate at that early stage. The court's finding was mixed. The court denied Plaintiffs' request for certification with respect to backpay because data relating to challenged promotions were not available for all class members. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/94opinions/94-1457.html">SAARSTAHL AG V. U.S.<BR></A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1949.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Is corrected as follows: On page 16. P.C. was on brief. Were on brief. Because there is no other cognizable basis for federal jurisdiction. Lurie and O'Connor are named as defendants in the instant suit. EPA has not yet sued to compel payment of these expenses or otherwise to enforce its claimed rights. 2The officer removal statute provides in pertinent part: A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following persons may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: 4 On February 20. Was really a suit against EPA and that. We requested supplemental briefing on whether this action was properly removed to federal court. Both sides responded that removal was valid under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1) because of Belaga's status as a federal officer. Because a federal court is under an unflagging duty to ensure that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cases it proposes to adjudicate. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1265.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Segal & Lewis were on brief for appellants. Farmer were on brief for appellee. The months of December through April are the prime season for condominium sales in the area. The needed repairs on the damaged units were not complet ed until May 1989. They challenge only the consequential damages award.1 Although the district court ruling denying the Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law is subject to plenary review. The jury verdict will not be set aside unless no rational factfinder could have reached the same verdict on the evidence adduced at trial. A district court ruling denying a motion for new trial will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion which results in a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/10/981302P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Including This opinion is fully consistent with the views expressed by Judge Kelly during the panel's conference following the oral argument of the case. Judge Kelly is presently unable to review the opinion. Which is filed without awaiting his express concurrence to avoid undue delay. 1 W.R. After a product was mixed. It was fed into a special machine for bagging. Chism was exposed to large amounts of dust from raw asbestos. Chism testified that one of the materials he added to mixtures when he worked in the specialties department was Zonolite vermiculite. Vermiculite is a The Honorable Carol E. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 2 mineral that is mined. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment if the record shows that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=93-2344.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Cain was on brief for appellants. Was using the upper section of an extension ladder (the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="387"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec95/93-6143.html">MACKLANBURG-DUNCAN CO. V. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY CO.<BR></A><BR> Appellants claimed insurance companies that had sold umbrella liability or comprehensive general liability ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-3682.man.html">S. CARD & NOVELTY, INC. V. LAWSON MARDON LABEL, INC. (4/7/1998, NO. 96-3682)<BR></A><BR> Although the license agreement is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0152p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Which is to say damages stemming from sales between Caradon and Eagle Picher after Eagle Picher petitioned for bankruptcy relief in 1991. The bankruptcy court granted the stay motion on the independent ground that Caradon did not have a cognizable claim to bring in the Northern District of Georgia. Common law contribution and common law indemnification were not part of [the] day to day interaction </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2246.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lougee</U> were on brief. Pease LLP</U> were on brief. That the rules and regulations of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) grant them a right to arbitrate the claims that the respondents have asserted against them in parallel state court litigation. The Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company (Variable) and The Paul Revere Protective Life Insurance Company (Protective) are wholly owned subsidiaries of The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (Revere Life). Revere Life is. A is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Delaware corporation. Both are headquartered in Tennessee.<A HREF= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954731.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Leach was not added as a loss payee. 1 Other companies also intervened but have been dismissed during the course of this litigation. Holding that the facts did not support reformation under Florida law and that the Consignors' interest in recovery was subject to the policy's conditions and exclusions. That the payments were unethical and in violation of Rule 4 3.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court thus held that the Consignors could recover pursuant to the legal liability provisions because the coverage exclusions were severable and only precluded the recovery of the assured who arranged the theft. The Consignors have no direct right of recovery and their interests are subject to the terms and exclusions of the policy. The Consignors are barred from recovery where the named insured cannot recover or where the policy has been breached. (2) recovery is barred because the district court previously granted summary judgment to Lloyds against the named assureds Credini. The district court incorrectly computed the prejudgment interest from the date of loss rather than from the date that the payments were due. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1615r.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> With him on the brief were John B. With him on the brief were R. Of counsel were David W. Is withdrawn. This opinion is substituted therefor. We conclude that the district court was correct in sending the question of infringement of the system and apparatus claims to the jury. An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19958459.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/023837p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> That there exist disputed issues of material fact concerning when Prudential knew or should have know of its injuries from ACMs in its properties. That the statute of limitations for Prudential's RICO claims should have been tolled due to Gypsum's active and fraudulent concealment of known health risks associated with ACMs. We will affirm. One of the myriad asbestos cases that have besieged the courts. Are owners and operators of buildings that installed asbestos containing materials ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/05/023933P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Moreno argues the district court erred (1) in applying the learned intermediary doctrine to bar the plaintiffs' claims and ruling Shire adequately warned Ehlis's treating physician about psychosis resulting from ingestion of Adderall and (2) in ruling their claims are preempted by the Food. Only Moreno is pursuing this appeal. To whom this case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). Is now known as Shire US. Inc. 23 2 1 contains amphetamine salts and is manufactured for treating ADHD in children and narcolepsy in adults. Adderall is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Who is Ehlis's girlfriend and the mother of his children. Ehlis was charged with murder. The charges were dismissed after various doctors testified about Ehlis's mental condition. Reporting Ehlis suffered from an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1604.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> On the brief were J. Of counsel was Bruce C. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Beth C. The revocation was an abuse of discretion. Customs explained in its denial that fuel is an </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/dec96/95-8031.wpd.html">KUENZLE V. HTM SPORT<BR></A><BR> Was seriously injured in a skiing accident near Jackson. Kuenzle was using Model 285 S ski bindings that were manufactured in Austria by defendant Tyrolia and purchased by her in Switzerland in 1986. Kuenzle asserts that the bindings were defectively designed. Tyrolia points out that it is an Austrian company which sells its products in the United States only through an independent distributor and that it conducts no business in Wyoming. To determine whether jurisdiction is present. A plaintiff must show that jurisdiction is legitimate under the laws of the forum state and that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011045.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: Sherry Cantrell was injured while using a portable gas grill manufactured by Weber Stephen Products Co. Because we are reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment to Weber. No instructions were included. An explosion occurred and the lid of the grill was propelled upward. The grill was apparently undamaged and is still in the possession of the Cantrells. The other defendants named in the suit were dismissed on the basis of the sealed container defense. The manufacturer of the propane canisters was never joined as a party. The district court reasoned that without expert testimony addressing whether a defect in the propane canister could have caused the explosion. It reasoned that </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/95-8459.opa.html">GRAY V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gray v. Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2000/985509.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We consider the validity of a provision in Continental Airlines' plan of reorganization that released and permanently enjoined shareholder lawsuits against certain of Continental Airlines' present and former directors and officers who were not themselves in bankruptcy. We will reject Continental Airlines' contention that claim preclusion and the doctrine of equitable mootness prevent us from considering the merits of this appeal. We will reverse the District Court's order approving the validity of this provision. Which is legally and factually insupportable. I. Appellants are plaintiffs in several securities fraud class action lawsuits brought against directors and officers of Continental Airlines Holdings. That order was affirmed on appeal on June 28. The District Court decision noted that the injunction could have been more narrowly crafted to permit some portion of Plaintiffs' class actions to continue. Insureds and the Insurers will provide releases to each other. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/97-2448.man.html">TECHNICAL COATING APPLICATORS, INC. V. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUAR. CO. (10/9/1998, NO. 97-2448)<BR></A><BR> An </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0275p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> 2) Ford's financial statements during the period are presumptively false because Ford failed to include material information concerning the contingent liability of related lawsuits and recalls in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2004/031397np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-8099.htm">02-8099 -- THOM V. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO. -- 12/22/2003<BR></A><BR> We have jurisdiction over this diversity based products liability action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/12/02-7079.htm">02-7079 -- GRAY V. HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE INC. -- 12/03/2003<BR></A><BR> Gray took Accutane to treat acne for a number of years and claims to have suffered from severe depression during that time. She alleged Roche was liable because it failed to adequately warn either her or her doctor about Accutane's possible psychiatric side effects. We will only find an abuse of discretion if the trial court's decision </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-3682.man.html">S. CARD & NOVELTY, INC. V. LAWSON MARDON LABEL, INC. (4/7/1998, NO. 96-3682)<BR></A><BR> Although the license agreement is </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/11/03-5016.htm">03-5016 -- VANOVER V. ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC. -- 11/28/2003<BR></A><BR> Was electrocuted while working in an aerial lift. Background <p> Decedent was employed by the Par Electric Company as a lineman. He was working in an aerial lift device ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/02/02-20827.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * New Process is a processor and distributor of metal products that are used in the manufacture of consumer goods. The price includes shipping costs and the steel is delivered F.O.B. Union Pacific entered into confidential rail </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/95-8459.opa.html">GRAY V. LOCKHEED AERONAUTICAL SYS. CO.<BR></A><BR> This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gray v. Survivors of three naval aircraft crewmembers who were killed after ejecting from a crashing Lockheed manufactured aircraft. Were killed and Air Warfare Technician Second Class (AW2) Tracy Mann was injured when they ejected from a S 3 </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0149p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Who was severely injured in a workplace accident involving a truck mounted crane manufactured by Defendant Manitowoc Boom Trucks. Michael Gilfeather was working on a job site near Cookeville. Were installing a new 1 No. 06 5145 Johnson v. Is basically a 10 wheel flatbed truck with a crane mounted on the bed. The Manitowoc 2592 is capable of hoisting and moving very large materials and equipment at a construction site. When the crane is in operation. The truck is secured by two front </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/11/98-5234.htm">98-5234 -- ROBERTS V. FARMERS INSURANCE CO. INC. -- 11/23/1999<BR></A><BR> Roberts was injured when her husband. Argued nevertheless that recovery should be permitted under the doctrine of reasonable expectations because the resident exclusion was either ambiguous or hidden in the policy. Summary judgment is appropriate if </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1105.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Were on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellees. Michael Johnson was injured when a pallet loaded with boxes of frozen cod fillets ( </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1044.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A. were on brief for The Sherwin Williams Company. Brilliant and New England Legal Foundation were on brief for Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire. P.A. were on brief for Eastern Mountain Platform Tennis. Aluminum panels are washed with acid to eliminate grease and etch the surface. The panels are sanded to increase the profile of the surface. A layer of primer epoxy paint is applied. Aluminum oxide aggregate is pneumatically broadcast over the wet epoxy primer layer. A topcoat of epoxy paint is applied. Aluminum oxide aggregate is pneumatically broadcast over the wet topcoat. The paint system must have two important characteristics. The primer coat must adhere to the aluminum through extreme changes of temperature because the game is played outdoors on a year round basis with a heater installed under the platform to melt snow and ice. Both the primer coat and the topcoat must have the capacity to hold aluminum oxide aggregate to insure a gritty nonslip surface for platform tennis players. 3 Sherwin Williams had violated an express warranty. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/00opinions/00-1233.html">SUPERIOR FIREPLACE V. MAJESTIC PRODUCTS COMPANY<BR></A><BR> Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/031116.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Lay </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3860.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that Triangle was negligent and/or breached an express or implied warranty when it recommended and sold Players a certain maritime sealant for the insulation covering the air conditioning ducts on its casino vessel. Players also sought a declaratory judgment that Triangle was liable for the economic damages 2 No. 01 3860 allegedly resulting from this negligence and/or breach of warranty. The ductwork was completely encased by the insulation and was therefore not visible to Holder. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992305.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Because we conclude that the Rileys have presented sufficient circumstantial evidence of a product defect to create a genuine issue of material fact. Riley's mother (Maxine Willoughby) were at the Riley home in New Carrollton. Their home was severely damaged. Many personal belongings were destroyed. At the time of the fire a portable oil filled space heater manufactured by De'Longhi was located on the rear porch of the Riley home. DE'LONGHI CORPORATION 3 fire was extinguished. Which was eventually settled. Wharton concluded that the fire was caused by electrical and thermal failure in the extension cord. Could not identify a defect in the heater and that their opinions were based on conjecture. The district court granted De'Longhi's motion after concluding that Fennell's deposition testimony was too elusive. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992142.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Alleging that the air bag in a 1995 Chevrolet Monte Carlo he was driving did not deploy as warranted when he crashed into a utility pole and that. His injuries from the accident were enhanced. Silvestri could not offer competent testimony to make out a prima facie case that the air bag was defective. Mark Silvestri was involved in a single vehicle crash in Preble. Although Silvestri was wearing his seat belt. He sustained severe facial lacerations and bone fractures and is disfigured as a result. The 1995 Monte Carlo was new. The impact to the front of the vehicle was equivalent to a 24 mph head on collision with a fixed barrier the </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982368.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Circuit Judge: The sole issue on appeal is whether we should construe or extend the United States Supreme Court's decision in Moragne v. He was actually employed by Tidewater Temps but worked on behalf of Mid Atlantic Coastings (MidAtlantic). Which was used to load sand for sandblasting. The crane operator's negligence and Norfolk's use of an inadequate communication signaling system were the reasons for her son's death. The Court noted that at common law there was no civil action for an injury that resulted in death and that English maritime law also had no cause of action for wrongful death on the high seas. The Court concluded that because it is now established that in the courts of the United States no action at law can be maintained for [wrongful death] in the absence of a statute giving the right. We are forced to the conclusion that no such action will lie in the courts of the United States under the general maritime law. Which originally was an obscure and rarely used cause of action for which many state wrongful death statutes did not account. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2072.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> P.A.</U> were on brief for appellant.</FONT> <P><FONT FACE= </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042016np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> We must determine when the contract between the two parties was formed and whether the contract included Solar's </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/02/98-6198.htm">98-6198 -- BREWER V. HARLEY-DAVIDSON INC. -- 02/24/1999<BR></A><BR> The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Plaintiffs Kerry and Mercy Brewer. We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Brewer was riding a 1993 Harley Davidson motorcycle when he was struck by an automobile. His left leg was crushed. The motorcycle lacked any leg protection. <p> Believing that the injury was due. Alleging that the motorcycle was defective and unreasonably dangerous and that it lacked adequate warnings and safeguards. As is relevant to this appeal. (1) plaintiffs have no cause of action for manufacturer's products liability because the alleged danger of a leg injury is open and obvious and no more dangerous than the ordinary consumer expects. (2) it had no duty to warn because the danger is obvious to an ordinary consumer. Summary judgment is appropriate </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/11/961080P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> The boat was a Sea Ray Runabout with a 230 horsepower Mercruiser The rear of the boat had He also appeals several of the district court's We affirm. From which swimmers could enter and exit the boat. was located above the motor and propeller. Was not located until several days later. Bunting alleged that the boat and motor were He further contended that the defective in that they allowed too high a concentration of carbon monoxide to gather around the boat and motor. users of those perils. Excluded some as well because it was cumulative. The circumstances of the experimental tests were not similar to the actual conditions of the accident. (3) the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence. To object to the remarks at the time they were made. (1995). Ct. 409 We will reverse only when a judge's comments were so pervasive as to affect the outcome of the trial and result in a miscarriage of justice. 3 challenged statements were made. Several of the challenged statements relied upon by Bunting were made at sidebars. </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="swhit"> <TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-3.gif" ALT="383"></TD> <TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962045.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR> Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Chesney was an employee of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) stationed at Goddard Space Flight Center. He was the head of the microelectronic systems branch at the time of his retirement in 1994. His speciality was telemetry. They were unsuccessful in receiving funding. The agreement was backdated to the date of incorporation. It provided that Hern's pay was contingent upon TelSys' receipt of funding. There was a dispute about the amount and quality of Hern's services. Chesney was still a government employee at the time. The first reason was that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had launched an investigation of Chesney and TelSys. It was essential to have a </TD> </TR> <TR CLASS="s