Case 2:11-cv Document 387 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 30774
|
|
- Audra Brook Cook
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 2:11-cv Document 387 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION IN RE: C. R. BARD, INC. PELVIC REPAIR MDL NO.: 2187 SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) DONNA CISSON and DAN CISSON ) 2:11-cv PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON DEFENDANT S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES COME NOW Plaintiffs, Donna and Dan Cisson, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) and move for judgment as a matter of law in their favor on Defendant C. R. Bard, Inc. s (hereinafter Defendant or Bard ) Affirmative Defenses of Assumption of Risk, Comparative Fault and Mitigation of Damages and show the Court as follows: Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiffs submit that the testimony of Donna Cisson and that of Dr. Brian Raybon, the physician who implanted Mrs. Cisson with the Avaulta Plus product, are dispositive of Bard s affirmative defenses of assumption of risk, comparative negligence, and mitigation of damages. Therefore, a brief synopsis of this testimony as it relates to these affirmative defenses is provided here. Mrs. Cisson testified that, at the time of her Avaulta Plus procedure, she had never heard that the product was defective and she was not aware of the dangers that she now knows are associated with the defective design of the product. (8/5/13 T., 80:15 80:20, 87:04 87:09). Mrs. Cisson had never heard about shrinkage, contraction, scarification or pore size as these issues relate to transvaginal mesh, and more specifically, the Avaulta Plus. (8/6/13 T., 43:09 43:15). -1-
2 Case 2:11-cv Document 387 Filed 08/12/13 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: Mrs. Cisson testified that she knows that all medical procedures and medicines have risks. (8/5/13 T., 129:1 129:14). Additionally, she testified that she has consented to other medical procedures throughout her life and was aware that these procedures had risks. (Id. at 130:19 132:23, 137:07 142:05). When asked why she consented to the Avaulta Plus procedure, Mrs. Cisson testified that she trusted Dr. Raybon and did not believe that he would recommend a defective product. (Id. at 76:8 76:12, 78:24 79:03, 178:11 178:14). Mrs. Cisson further testified that she would not have consented to the Avaulta Plus procedure if Dr. Raybon had not recommended it. (Id. at 79:01 79:24). Dr. Brian Raybon was a preceptor for Bard and was integrally involved in teaching other doctors how to use the Avaulta Plus. (7/30/13 T., 12:06 15:15). Dr. Raybon testified that he taught hundreds of doctors how to use the Avaulta Plus. (Id. at 12:19 12:22). Despite his relationship with the company, however, Dr. Raybon testified that critical information was not conveyed to him by Bard which prevented him from understanding the nature and extent of the defects in the product, even though Bard was aware. (7/30/13 T., 102:22 104:11 (was not told the mesh would shrink 30%-50%, but instead was told no more than 15%); 104:12-18 (was not told that mesh was overengineered with respect to strength for the biologic quality); 104:19 105:8 (was not told that mesh design formed a rigid scar plate and did not integrate well over time with host tissue); 105:09-20 (was not told that the minimum pore size necessary was mm); 106:25-107:23 (was not told that Bard never had any data on mesh shrinkage); 107:24-109:13 and 111:21-112:6 (was not told that Avaulta Plus had a higher risk of delayed healing, extrusion and rejection because of the attached pig-skin sheet, but instead was told that the pigskin was intended to reduce erosions); 109:14-111:20 (was not told that Bard had a warning -2-
3 Case 2:11-cv Document 387 Filed 08/12/13 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: from the supplier of the raw material used to make the mesh that the material was not to be used in permanent implants in humans)). Dr. Raybon testified with conviction that the information above represents problems with the Avaulta Plus that would have led him to avoid implanting the product in his patients, including Donna Cisson. (Id. at 88:12 88:23, 102:02 104:04, 104:19 105:20, 108:10 109:09, 109:14 110:15). Dr. Raybon testified unequivocally that he did not inform and could not have informed Mrs. Cisson of all of the risks associated with the Avaulta product because he was unaware of all the risks. (Id., 112:13-18). He absolutely could not have warned her about the defective nature of the device because he was unaware himself. Rule 50(a) standard for judgment as a matter of law A Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is appropriate under Rule 50(a) if there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for a party on an issue. Fed.R. Civ. P. 50(a). The non-moving party must present more than a mere scintilla of evidence suggesting that reasonable minds could reach differing verdicts. Thorne v. All Restoration Services, Inc., 448 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11 th Cir. 2006). Instead, a claim or affirmative defense should only be submitted to the jury where there is a substantial conflict in the evidence as to the claim or affirmative defense. Id. Argument and Citation of Authority A. Defense Nos. 5 and 40: Assumption of Risk Assumption of risk is not a viable defense in a product liability action under Georgia law unless the consumer discovers the [product s] defect and is aware of the danger [emanating from that defect], but nevertheless proceeds unreasonably to make use of the product.... Coast Catamaran Corp. v. Mann, 321 S.E.2d 353, 356 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984), judgment aff d,
4 Case 2:11-cv Document 387 Filed 08/12/13 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: S.E.2d 436 (disapproved of on other grounds by, Banks v. ICI Americas, Inc., 450 S.E.2d 671 (Ga. 1994)) (Emphasis added; brackets in original). The issue is a subjective one geared to the particular plaintiff and his situation.... Hightower v. Cox, 418 S.E.2d 613, 616 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992) (citing Coast Catamaran Corp., 321 S.E.2d 353, 356 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)). In Hillman v. Carlton Co., 240 Ga.App. 432, 434 (1999), the Georgia Court of Appeals explained the distinction between an assumption of risk and comparative negligence: Assumption of risk means the plaintiff is fully aware of the dangerous defect or condition caused by defendant's negligence but freely chooses to proceed nonetheless. Contributory or comparative negligence means the plaintiff, though exposing himself to danger, nevertheless is unaware of the defendant's negligence and thus expects the defendant to act or to have acted with reasonable care. The assumption of risk defense is inapplicable on its face based on the evidence presented during this trial. Georgia law is well-established that one cannot assume the risk of the negligent act of another, in this case, Bard s negligence in failing to warn and designing the Avaulta products. See, e.g., Little Rapids Corp. v. McCamy, 218 Ga.App. 111, (1995) ( Significantly, the rule [of assumption of risk] does not extend to assuming the risk of the negligent act of another. (Internal Citations Omitted)). Georgia s pattern jury charge on the assumption of risk defense in a products action, which succinctly and accurately summarizes Georgia law on this affirmative defense, is set forth below. (Georgia Suggested Pattern Jury Instructions, Volume I: Civil Cases, Fifth Edition). [1] As set forth in the pattern jury charge, the [1] Assumption of the Risk Defense Every person has the duty to exercise ordinary care for his/her own safety. If a person discovers a product's defect and is aware of the danger but nevertheless proceeds unreasonably to make use of the product, taking a risk which in and of itself amounts to a failure to exercise ordinary care for his/her safety, he/she cannot later hold another person responsible for any injury suffered due to taking such a risk. If you find by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) the plaintiff knew of the danger posed by the defective product, 2) the plaintiff understood and appreciated the risks of that defect, and -4-
5 Case 2:11-cv Document 387 Filed 08/12/13 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: assumption of the risk defense is applicable in a products liability action only [i]f a person discovers a product s defect and understood and appreciated the risks of that defect. (Emphasis added). Bard cannot meet its burden of proving such defense under the facts of this case; it certainly cannot prove it by showing that the Plaintiff accepted certain risks associated with her surgery. The evidence presented in this case is that Mrs. Cisson was not aware that the Avaulta Plus was defective and was not aware of the risks specifically related to the defect in the product. (8/5/13 T., 80:15 80:20, 87:07 87:09; 8/6/13 T.,43:09 43:15). The record is clear that Mrs. Cisson relied on the advice of Dr. Raybon in consenting to the implantation of the Avaulta Plus and that she did not believe that he would implant a defective device in her body. (Id. at 76:8 76:12, 78:24 79:24, 178:11 178:14). This evidence is completely undisputed. No reasonable jury could find, based on the evidence presented during the trial in this case, that Mrs. Cisson knew that the Avaulta Plus was defective at the time she consented to the implant procedure. Therefore, Bard s assumption of the risk defense fails as a matter of law. While it is Mrs. Cisson s subjective knowledge and understanding that is relevant to this inquiry, Dr. Raybon s testimony provides additional support for her lack of knowledge of a defect in the product. Mrs. Cisson s implanting physician, who was a preceptor for Bard, also was completely unaware of the nature and extent of the defects in the product; thus, a reasonable 3) the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself/herself to such a risk, then the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover, and you would return a verdict for the defendant. Center Chemical Co. v. Parzini, 234 Ga. 868 (1975) Sharpnack v. Hoffinger Industries Inc., 223 Ga. App. 833 (1996) Raymond v. Amanda Co., Ltd., 925 F. Supp (N.D. Ga. 1996). -5-
6 Case 2:11-cv Document 387 Filed 08/12/13 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: jury could not find that Mrs. Cisson had knowledge contrary to that held by her doctor, again Bard s own preceptor. Bard has not refuted the testimony discussed above. Bard has presented no evidence that Mrs. Cisson subjectively understood or assumed any risk of having a defective product implanted in her body. Additionally, Bard has presented no evidence to establish that Mrs. Cisson knew that the Avaulta Plus product being implanted in her body was defective or that she was aware of any danger that was associated with any such defective condition. Mrs. Cisson did know that there were some risks associated with this procedure, just as she knows that that there are risks associated with all medical procedures. (8/5/13 T., 129:1 129:14). However, this does not support the contention that she knew the Avaulta Plus was defective, which was Bard s burden to show. Bard has not satisfied its burden, and it has presented no evidence to contradict the testimony of Donna Cisson that she did not know the product being implanted in her body was or could be defective. In denying summary judgment on Plaintiffs motion on this affirmative defense, the Court held that Bard was entitled to argue in the alternative. Throughout the course of this trial, Bard has never argued in the alternative that Mrs. Cisson knew that the Avaulta Plus was defective. Bard has never conceded that the Avaulta Plus was defective, or that there is evidence upon which the jury could find the Avaulta Plus defective. Instead, Bard s defense has been solely that the product is not defective in any way. Given Bard s defense, it is logically impossible for Bard to now contend that there is a question of fact on its assumption of risk defense. Therefore, Bard s affirmative defense of assumption of risk must fail. The only evidence that has been presented on this issue is that Mrs. Cisson did not know that the Avaulta Plus was defective and that she was unaware of the dangers associated with the -6-
7 Case 2:11-cv Document 387 Filed 08/12/13 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: defects in the product. Therefore, judgment as a matter of law should be granted in favor of Plaintiffs on Bard s asserted affirmative defense of assumption of risk. B. Defenses Nos : Comparative Negligence of Plaintiff Under the comparative negligence doctrine of Georgia, a plaintiff whose negligence is less than that of the defendant is not denied recovery, but his damages are reduced by the jury in proportion to the degree of fault attributable to him. Bridges Farms, Inc. v. Blue, 267 Ga. 505 (1997). The plaintiff s recovery can only be reduced if her negligence proximately caused her injury. Id. at 506. In the present action, there is a complete absence of evidence that could support a finding that Mrs. Cisson was negligent or at fault in any way that contributed to or caused her injuries. Raybon, himself a Bard preceptor, testified that Mrs. Cisson was a compliant patient who did nothing to cause her own injuries. (7/30/13 T., 85:20 86:10, 113:02 113:06). Bard not only has presented no evidence of negligence by Mrs. Cisson, Bard also not presented any evidence of any act or omission by Mrs. Cisson that in any way caused or contributed to her injuries. Specifically, Bard has not delivered on the evidentiary promises contained in its Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant s Affirmative Defenses. (Dkt. No. 203). In its summary judgment response brief, Bard argued that it would present evidence that three distinct acts and omissions that contributed to Mrs. Cisson s injuries. First, Bard referenced evidence that Mrs. Cisson s failure to lose weight before and after her implant surgery contributed to her injuries. (Id. at pg. 7). However, Bard has not presented any evidence to support this contention and specifically did not elicit any testimony to this effect from its urogynecology expert, Dr. Vincent Lucente. Second, Bard argued that summary judgment was inappropriate due to evidence that Mrs. Cisson did not use Estrace estrogen -7-
8 Case 2:11-cv Document 387 Filed 08/12/13 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: cream as instructed by her physicians. (Id. at pg. 8). However, at trial, Bard expressly abandoned this argument. (8/5/13 T., 103:12 104:14). Finally, Bard argued that it would present evidence that Mrs. Cisson s failure to seek a second opinion or attempt conservative treatment contributed to her injuries. (Dkt. No. 203 at 8). At trial, Dr. John Miklos, the physician who explanted the center portion of Mrs. Cisson s Avaulta Plus, testified that conservative treatment was not appropriate and that the mesh needed to be removed. (Miklos T., 44:19 45:18). Further, Mrs. Cisson did seek a second opinion from Dr. Joshua Sepesi after treating with Dr. Raybon. (8/5/13 T., 91:23 96:23). Dr. Sepesi referred Mrs. Cisson to Dr. Miklos for a possible revision surgery and she took this advice. (Id. at 96:18 97:07). Dr. Miklos was the third specialist that Mrs. Cisson had seen in hopes of finding some relief from her complications. A reasonable jury could not find that Mrs. Cisson acted unreasonably when she chose not to seek a fourth opinion. Additionally, Bard s expert, Dr. Lucente, testified that Dr. Miklos acted appropriately in the treatment of Mrs. Cisson and that he would not second guess his treatment. (8/9/13 T., 267:20 268:02, 269:23 270:15). Therefore, Bard has failed to present any evidence that Mrs. Cisson acted unreasonably in consenting to a revision surgery by Dr. Miklos or that this revision surgery was causally related to her injuries. Because there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding Bard s defense of comparative negligence, Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law in their favor as to this defense. C. Defense No. 5: Mitigation of Damages In Georgia, although a plaintiff must take ordinary and diligent steps to mitigate her injury to the extent practicable, it is the adverse party s burden to show that the plaintiff failed to properly mitigate her damages. Ga. Code Ann (West 2012); Moreland Auto Stop, -8-
9 Case 2:11-cv Document 387 Filed 08/12/13 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: Inc. v. TSC Leasing Corp., 454 S.E.2d 626, 628 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (quoting Central Nat. Ins. Co. of Omaha v. Dixon, 373 S.E.2d 849, 852 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988) ( While it is true that [the plaintiff] had a duty to mitigate its damages, [t]he burden is upon the party asserting that the opposite party could have lessened his damages, and such proof must include sufficient data to allow the jury to reasonably estimate how much the damages could have been mitigated. ) (Emphasis added). As set forth in Bard s response to Plaintiffs summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 203, p. 13), a plaintiff must be negligent in failing to mitigate her damages in order to provide a basis for the defense of mitigation of damages. Again, however, Bard has presented absolutely no evidence that Mrs. Cisson failed to take reasonably diligent steps to mitigate her damages upon sustaining injuries attributable to Bard s defective product. As set forth above, Mrs. Cisson s doctor has testified that she complied with his instructions, and she did nothing that could have caused her own injuries. (7/30/13 T., 85:20 86:10, 113:02 113:06). Additionally, the arguments set forth above regarding Bard s comparative negligence affirmative defense are equally dispositive of Bard s affirmative defense of mitigation of damages. Bard has simply failed to present evidence to support its defenses, and those defenses must fail as a matter of law. Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Bard s mitigation of damages defense pursuant to Rule 50. Conclusion Plaintiffs are entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law on Bard s defenses of Assumption of Risk, Comparative Fault, and Mitigation of Damages because there is no evidence that would support any of the aforementioned affirmative defenses, and no reasonable jury could find in -9-
10 Case 2:11-cv Document 387 Filed 08/12/13 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: favor of Bard on such defenses. For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that the Court grant their Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law as set forth above. This 12 th day of August, Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley, P.C. P.O. Box 832 Athens, GA (706) By: /s/ Henry G. Garrard, III Henry G. Garrard, III hgg@bbgbalaw.com Georgia Bar No Gary B. Blasingame gbb@bbgbalaw.com Georgia Bar No James B. Matthews, III jbm@bbgbalaw.com Georgia Bar No Andrew J. Hill, III ajh@bbgbalaw.com Georgia Bar No Josh B. Wages jbw@bbgbalaw.com Georgia Bar No Counsel for the Plaintiffs -10-
11 Case 2:11-cv Document 387 Filed 08/12/13 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 12, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the CM/ECF participants registered to receive service in this action. Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley, P.C. P.O. Box 832 Athens, GA (706) By: /s/ Henry G. Garrard, III Henry G. Garrard, III hgg@bbgbalaw.com Georgia Bar No Gary B. Blasingame gbb@bbgbalaw.com Georgia Bar No James B. Matthews, III jbm@bbgbalaw.com Georgia Bar No Andrew J. Hill, III ajh@bbgbalaw.com Georgia Bar No Josh B. Wages jbw@bbgbalaw.com Georgia Bar No Counsel for the Plaintiffs -11-
Case 2:12-cv Document 210 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 33896
Case 2:12-cv-03655 Document 210 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 33896 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION DONNA KAISER, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 2:12-cv Document 1 Filed 06/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1
Case 2:12-cv-01935 Document 1 Filed 06/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION Kimberly Durham and Morris Durham,
More informationCase 4:17-cv CDL Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 4:17-cv-00031-CDL Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA CONNIE FRANKLIN and MARVIN FRANKLIN, Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON,
More informationCase 4:17-cv CDL Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 4:17-cv-00031-CDL Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA CONNIE FRANKLIN and MARVIN FRANKLIN, Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON,
More informationCase 2:11-cv Document 356 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 28280
Case 2:11-cv-00195 Document 356 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 28280 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION IN RE: C. R. BARD, INC., PELVIC
More informationCase 2:12-cv Document 293 Filed 02/18/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 20968
Case 2:12-cv-04301 Document 293 Filed 02/18/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 20968 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION ------------------------------------------------------------
More informationCase 2:12-md Document 1596 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 19539
Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 1596 Filed 06/12/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 19539 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON IN RE: ETHICON, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS
More informationCase 4:05-cv WRW Document 223 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION
Case 405-cv-00163-WRW Document 223 Filed 07/11/2006 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION In re PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION LINDA REEVES
More informationCase 2:13-cv Document 281 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 20272
Case 2:13-cv-22473 Document 281 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 20272 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION DIANNE M. BELLEW, Plaintiff,
More informationORIGINAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION ORDER
Deere & Company v. Rebel Auction Company, Inc. et al Doc. 27 ORIGINAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT S AUGytSTASIV. 2016 JUN-3 PM3:ol
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-60764 Document: 00513714839 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, United States Court of Appeals Fifth
More informationCase 2:06-cv CJB-SS Document 29 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO:
Case 2:06-cv-00585-CJB-SS Document 29 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CLIFTON DREYFUS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 06-585 ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS, INC.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION
State Automobile Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. There Is Hope Community Church Doc. 62 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11CV-149-JHM
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Louis & Lillian Gareis, Plaintiffs Case No. 16-cv-4187 (JNE/FLN) v. ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Louis & Lillian Gareis, Plaintiffs Case No. 16-cv-4187 (JNE/FLN) v. ORDER 3M Company & Arizant Healthcare, Inc., Defendants. On April 12, 2018, the Court
More informationCase 2:14-md EEF-MBN Document 6232 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:14-md-02592-EEF-MBN Document 6232 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA IN RE: XARELTO (RIVAROXABAN) PRODUCTS * MDL NO. 2592 LIABILITY LITIGATION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION DONNA CISSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00195 C. R. BARD, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM
More informationCase 1:12-cv JD Document 169 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Case 1:12-cv-00130-JD Document 169 Filed 05/07/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWN OF WOLFEBORO ) ) Civil No. 1:12-cv-00130-JD Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) WRIGHT-PIERCE,
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
WHOLE COURT NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules June 28,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA - Alexandria Division -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA - Alexandria Division - IN RE: BLACKWATER ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT LITIGATION Case No. 1:09-cv-615 Case No. 1:09-cv-616 Case No. 1:09-cv-617
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 5, 2002 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 5, 2002 Session MARY B. HARRIS v. STEVEN R. ABRAM, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 00C-3570 Marietta Shipley, Judge
More informationCase 2:12-md Document 174 Filed 06/14/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1222
Case 2:12-md-02327 Document 174 Filed 06/14/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1222 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION IN RE: ETHICON, INC., PELVIC
More informationStrickland v. Arch Ins. Co.
Neutral As of: January 16, 2018 3:34 PM Z Strickland v. Arch Ins. Co. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit January 9, 2018, Decided No. 17-10610 Non-Argument Calendar Reporter 2018 U.S.
More informationCase 7:16-cv O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792
Case 7:16-cv-00108-O Document 85 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2792 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC.; SPECIALITY
More information2:15-cv CSB-EIL # 297 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION
2:15-cv-02136-CSB-EIL # 297 Page 1 of 6 E-FILED Friday, 07 December, 2018 09:02:22 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION HYE-YOUNG
More informationCase 2:12-cv Document 291 Filed 02/18/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 20955
Case 2:12-cv-04301 Document 291 Filed 02/18/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 20955 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON IN RE: ETHICON, INC. PELVIC REPAIR
More informationPursuant to Rule 50(b), Ala. R. Civ. Proc., Defendant, Mobile Infirmary Association,
ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2/9/2017 1:30 PM 02-CV-2012-901184.00 CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA JOJO SCHWARZAUER, CLERK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA VOSHON SIMPSON, a Minor, by and
More informationStrict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY WARRANTY LAW
Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY The legal liability of manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of goods to consumers, users and bystanders for physical harm or injuries or property
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO ORDER & REASONS
Shields v. Dolgencorp, LLC Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LATRICIA SHIELDS CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-1826 DOLGENCORP, LLC & COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC. SECTION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 12, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 12, 2005 Session RHONDA D. DUNCAN v. ROSE M. LLOYD, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 01C-1459 Walter C. Kurtz,
More informationNo. 94-CV Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (Hon. Mary Ellen Abrecht, Trial Judge)
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 24, 2012 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 24, 2012 Session SUSAN DANIEL V. BRITTANY SMITH Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County No. 35636 L. Craig Johnson, Judge No. M2011-00830-COA-R3-CV
More informationSecond, you must not be influenced by sympathy, passion or prejudice in favor of any party or against any of the parties.
CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, we now come to that part of the case where I must give you the instructions on the law. If you cannot hear me, please raise your hand. It is important that you
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BOTSFORD CONTINUING CARE CORPORATION, d/b/a BOTSFORD CONTINUING HEALTH CENTER, FOR PUBLICATION March 22, 2011 9:05 a.m. Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 294780 Oakland Circuit
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
HARPOLD et al v. ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. Doc. 73 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JO ANN HARPOLD and JEFF HARPOLD, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:06-cv-1666-DFH-DML
More informationCase 0:17-cv WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.
Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 1 of 15 LATOYA DAWSON-WEBB, v. Plaintiff, DAVOL, INC. and C.R. BARD, INC., Defendants. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION. v. Civil Action No.
Kilgore et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation Doc. 139 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION DEBRA KILGORE and WILLIAM KILGORE, Plaintiffs,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:13-cv-03012-TWT Document 67 Filed 10/28/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ************
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 05-0019 CAROL DEJEAN VERSUS ST. CHARLES GAMING COMPANY, INC. ************ APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION
Kinard v. Greenville Police Department et al Doc. 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Ira Milton Kinard, ) ) Plaintiff, ) C.A. No. 6:10-cv-03246-JMC
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA PETITIONERS BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AHKTAR QAZI, M.D, FLORIDA RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, P.A., Defendants/Petitioners, SUPREME COURT CASE NUMBER: FIFTH DISTRICT vs. CASE NUMBER: 5D01-3055 RICHARD LARRY GOOLSBY,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 15 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID NASH, v. Plaintiff - Appellant, KEN LEWIS, individually and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO TENET HEALTH SYSTEM SECTION R (4) HOSPITALS, INC., ET AL.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VINCENT J. SMITHSON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 07-3953 TENET HEALTH SYSTEM SECTION R (4) HOSPITALS, INC., ET AL. ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BRYSON CITY DIVISION CIVIL NO. 2:06 CV 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BRYSON CITY DIVISION CIVIL NO. 2:06 CV 2 CHRISTINA BENEFIELD and GUILLERMO MATEO, as Co-Personal Representatives of the ESTATE
More informationCase 5:17-cv C Document 1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 33 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION
Case 5:17-cv-00146-C Document 1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 33 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION LYDIA EDWARDS, v. Plaintiff, JOHNSON & JOHNSON AND ETHICON,
More informationCase 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA COMPLAINT
Case 2:17-cv-12473 Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KIMBERLY PELLEGRIN * DOCKET NO. * V. * * C.R. BARD, DAVOL, INC., * MEDTRONIC,
More information2:14-cv RMG Date Filed 06/03/15 Entry Number 72 Page 1 of 9
2:14-cv-02567-RMG Date Filed 06/03/15 Entry Number 72 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION East Bridge Lofts Property Owners ) Civil Action
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:17-cv-02014-CAS-AGR Document 81 Filed 01/23/19 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:1505 Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:12-cv-02948-WSD Document 5 Filed 08/30/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION EFRAIN HILARIO AND GABINA ) MARTINEZ FLORES, As Surviving
More informationCase 7:16-cv O Document 68 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1790
Case 7:16-cv-00108-O Document 68 Filed 01/19/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1790 FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA
More informationNOTICE OF FILING AND HEARING
NOTICE OF FILING AND HEARING This document was lodged electronically in the FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA (FCA) on 13/04/2018 3:35:30 PM AEST and has been accepted for filing under the Court s Rules. Filing
More informationCase 2:12-cv JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 08/02/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1
Case 2:12-cv-00421-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 08/02/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SHELLY K. COPPEDGE VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. ETHICON,
More informationTort Reform (2) The pleading specifically asserts that the medical care has and all medical records
Tort Reform 2011 Medical Malpractice Changes (SB 33; S.L. 2011 400) o Enhanced Special Pleading Requirement (Rule 9(j)) Rule 9(j) of the Rules of Civil Procedure now requires medical malpractice complaints
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 4, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 4, 2006 Session NORTHEAST KNOX UTILITY DISTRICT v. STANFORT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SOUTHERN CONSTRUCTORS, INC., and AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2011 PATRICIA PARRISH, Appellant, CORRECTED v. Case No. 5D09-3903 CITY OF ORLANDO, Appellee. / Opinion filed February
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JANET TIPTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION April 19, 2005 9:05 a.m. v No. 252117 Oakland Circuit Court WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL and LC No. 2003-046552-CP ANDREW
More information5.40B MANUFACTURING DEFECT (Approved 10/1998; Revised 8/2011) Let me give you some applicable concepts which deal with the claim of
CHARGE 5.40B Page 1 of 8 5.40B MANUFACTURING DEFECT (Approved 10/1998; Revised 8/2011) Let me give you some applicable concepts which deal with the claim of manufacturing defect, and then I will explain
More informationTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv MR-DLH
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00157-MR-DLH HOWARD MILTON MOORE, JR. and ) LENA MOORE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) MEMORANDUM
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT PONTE, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant- Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 24, 2012 v Nos. 298193; 298194 Washtenaw Circuit Court SANDRA HAZLETT, d/b/a HAZLETT & LC No.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PETER BALALAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED August 2, 2012 v No. 302540 Wayne Circuit Court STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 08-109599-NF Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 EDWIN LYDA, Plaintiff, v. CBS INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-0-jsw ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cv CDL. versus
Case: 17-10264 Date Filed: 01/04/2018 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-10264 D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cv-00053-CDL THE GRAND RESERVE OF COLUMBUS,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D September 2, 2009 No. 09-30064 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk ROY A. VANDERHOFF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION (at Covington) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 2766 Filed: 07/29/13 Page: 1 of 5 - Page ID#: 80288 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION (at Covington IN RE: DARVOCET, DARVON AND
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION. Defendant Gary Blount ("Defendant") s response to Plaintiff s Motion for Partial
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF UNION A-1 PAVEMENT MARKING, LLC, vs. Plaintiff, APMI CORPORATION, LINDA BLOUNT and GARY BLOUNT, Defendants. IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION FILE
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI)
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 15-1988 IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI) Steven Frankenberger, Special Administrator for the Estate of Howard
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
FOURTH DIVISION ELLINGTON, P. J., BRANCH and SELF, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely
More informationGalimore v Advanced Dermatology of N.Y. P.C NY Slip Op 31084(U) February 19, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013
Galimore v Advanced Dermatology of N.Y. P.C. 2016 NY Slip Op 31084(U) February 19, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 451072/2013 Judge: Joan B. Lobis Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationMANEY & GORDON, P.A. 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3170 Tampa, Florida Tel: (813) Fax: (813)
Filing # 11196211 Electronically Filed 03/11/2014 01:57:08 PM RECEIVED, 3/11/2014 13:58:49, John A. Tomasino, Clerk, Supreme Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA WILLIAM BERNHART, M.D., ROY LIPTRAP, P.A.,
More informationPlaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. This matter is before the court on motions for summary judgment by both
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. WILLIAM HOOPS, v. Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PR RESTAURANTS LLC, d/b/a PANERA BREAD, and CORNERBRooK LLC, Defendants. I. BEFORE THE COURT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-20631 Document: 00514634552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RICHARD NORMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant Summary Calendar United States Court
More informationCase 3:14-cv Document 34 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 165 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 3:14-cv-29536 Document 34 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 165 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA LUMUMBA EARLE, individually and as the Personal Representative of
More informationCase 2:17-cv AJS Document 1 Filed 10/19/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-01355-AJS Document 1 Filed 10/19/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROLINE IDELUCA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No.: v. ) ) C.R.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Roy v. Continuing Care RX, Inc. Doc. 41 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SAJAL ROY, : No. 1:08cv2015 Plaintiff : : (Judge Munley) v. : : CONTINUING CARE RX, INC.,
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 98-CV-3. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (Hon. Peter H. Wolf, Trial Judge)
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationA Damn Sham: When Opposition Motions Preclude Removal
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Damn Sham: When Opposition Motions Preclude Removal
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
TERRY A. STOUT, an individual, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Plaintiff - Appellant, FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 27, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk
More informationMODEL MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE CHARGE AND VERDICT SHEET. MOTOR VEHICLE VOLUME REPLACEMENT JUNE
Page 1 of 25 100.00 MODEL MOTOR VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE CHARGE AND VERDICT SHEET. NOTE WELL: This is a sample only. Your case must be tailored to fit your facts and the law. Do not blindly follow this pattern.
More informationSchoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al Doc. 553
Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al Doc. 553 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------------X ADRIAN SCHOOLCRAFT,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CASE NO.: 5:06cv23-R MARK L. CRAWFORD, M.D., P.S.C.,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CASE NO.: 5:06cv23-R MARK L. CRAWFORD, M.D., P.S.C., PLAINTIFF v. CENTRAL STATE, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS HEALTH AND WELFARE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 324 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-40183 Document: 00512886600 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/31/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RICARDO A. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff - Appellant Summary Calendar United States
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 21, 2007
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 2, 2007 MAXINE JONES, ET AL. v. MONTCLAIR HOTELS TENNESSEE, LLC, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County
More informationCase 1:15-cv IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137
Case 1:15-cv-00110-IMK Document 8 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 137 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CLARKSBURG DIVISION MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION,
More informationCase 1:16-cv JMS-DML Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 189
Case 1:16-cv-02431-JMS-DML Document 41 Filed 11/18/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION JOHN DOE, formerly known as ) JANE DOE,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA ) ) ) ) ) )
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage,
More informationIndiana: When Can an Employer be Liable for an Intentional Tort?
www.pavlacklawfirm.com December 11 2015 by: Colin E. Flora Associate Civil Litigation Attorney Indiana: When Can an Employer be Liable for an Intentional Tort? We have previously discussed the legal doctrine
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case Number Honorable David M.
Grange Insurance Company of Michigan v. Parrish et al Doc. 159 GRANGE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Case Number
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ) ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM ) NOW, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 1:06-CV-1891-JTC
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 3 February 2015
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationCase 2:13-cv DDP-VBK Document 875 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:36997
Case :-cv-0-ddp-vbk Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 VICTORIA LUND, individually and as successor-in-interest to WILLIAM LUND, deceased;
More informationCase 1:15-cv KBJ Document 16 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:15-cv-00875-KBJ Document 16 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATASHA DALLEY, Plaintiff, v. No. 15 cv-0875 (KBJ MITCHELL RUBENSTEIN & ASSOCIATES,
More informationBRENDA LOWERY GRAVITT OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 17, 1999 PHILLIP D. WARD, M.D., ET AL.
Present: All the Justices BRENDA LOWERY GRAVITT OPINION BY v. Record No. 982269 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 17, 1999 PHILLIP D. WARD, M.D., ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HALIFAX COUNTY
More informationCase 2:13-cv RSP Document 143 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 6760
Case 2:13-cv-00791-RSP Document 143 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 6760 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION FREENY, ET AL. v. MURPHY OIL CORPORATION,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE MARCH 18, 2003 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE MARCH 18, 2003 Session JESSE RANDALL FITTS, JR., ET AL. v. DR. DONALD ARMS d/b/a McMINNVILLE ORTHOPEDIC CLINIC, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court
More informationCase 2:18-cv JHS Document 26 Filed 11/30/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:18-cv-01333-JHS Document 26 Filed 11/30/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ERIC SCALLA, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-1333 KWS, INC.,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No. 188 MDA 2012
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MARILYN E. TAYLOR AND GREGORY L. TAYLOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. JOANNA M. DELEO, D.O. Appellee No. 188 MDA 2012 Appeal
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORDER
Pena v. American Residential Services, LLC et al Doc. 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION LUPE PENA, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-12-2588 AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Klein & Heuchan, Inc. v. CoStar Realty Information, Inc. et al Doc. 149 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION KLEIN & HEUCHAN, INC., Plaintiff /Counter-Defendant,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. v. CASE NO. SC04-489
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA BIOMET, INC., a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana and licensed to do and be in business in Florida, and MIKE TRIESTE,
More informationCase: 4:15-cv CAS Doc. #: 225 Filed: 11/15/18 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 1938
Case: 4:15-cv-00074-CAS Doc. #: 225 Filed: 11/15/18 Page: 1 of 13 PageID #: 1938 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION DAVID A. SEVERANCE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No.
More information