This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Although the district courtruled that Sundance had waived its arbitration argument by not making it earlier, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit reversed because of “the absence of a showing of prejudice to Morgan.” United States. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Ohio, ex rel. Sundance, Inc.
One court ( LG Stuttgart, 11.9.2024 – 27 O 137/23 , 18.09.2024 27 O 176/23 ) even considered it sufficient if the consumer was in Germany when opening the bank account with the gaming provider from which the money was then transferred to the games. So far, German courts were hesitant to take this road.
One court ( LG Stuttgart, 11.9.2024 – 27 O 137/23 , 18.09.2024 27 O 176/23 ) even considered it sufficient if the consumer was in Germany when opening the bank account with the gaming provider from which the money was then transferred to the games. So far, German courts were hesitant to take this road.
A tragedy in North Carolina could present rather difficult torts questions in a wrongful death case for a grieving family. There is also the potential liability of the GPS system, though it is unclear whether he was using an App like Google Maps or a car manufacturer’s system. In all likelihood, it was a phone-based app.
Share The Supreme Court on Thursday put a bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of the highly addictive opioid painkiller OxyContin, on hold while it reviews a challenge to the legality of the plan, which would shield the Sackler family, the owners of the drug company, from lawsuits. There were no recorded dissents.
Here is my annual list of Halloween torts and crimes. Halloween has everything for a torts-filled holiday: battery, trespass, defamation, nuisance, product liability and more. However, my students and I often discuss the remarkably wide range of torts that comes with All Hallow’s Eve. In another June 2023 decision in Munoz v.
The First Circuit reversed a trial court that dismissed the case, alleging that the American firearms industry is legally responsible for violence in Mexico. However, as a torts professor, there is a question of whether the tort element of proximate cause could be materially changed in the case. I respectfully disagree.
Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion by a truck trailer manufacturers trade group to stay the final rule adopted by the U.S. The court directed the parties to file status reports every 90 days. Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, Inc. The court also dismissed defamation and related state tort claims.
The court upheld other aspects of the 2018 standards, including the applicable volumes, restrictions on the use of Renewable Identification Numbers for fuel that is exported, and EPA’s accounting for small refinery exemptions. EPA remanded the standards but did not vacate the rule. American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v.
The district court scheduled a hearing for April 16, 2020 to consider the defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer those cases. In a separate order, the court granted the motions of states and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers to intervene in support of the respondents. Union of Concerned Scientists v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content