OREGON LAW COMMISSION
|
|
- Damian Tobias Lawson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 OREGON LAW COMMISSION INFORMATION ITEM July, 2000 A Report to the Statutes of Limitations Work Group regarding statutory time limitations on product liability actions From The Office of the Executive Director David R. Kenagy Prepared by Owen Von Flue Research Assistant
2 Questions Addressed What is the legislative history of ORS ? 2. What does the proposed federal product liability statute propose with regard to statutes of limitation and repose? 3. What are the state trends in products liability statutes of repose and limitations. Short Answer Legislative History: ORS was enacted in 1977 amidst a frenzy of national product liability reform. Oregon, like other jurisdictions, enacted a fixed statute of repose coupled with a statute of limitations. According to judicial interpretations of the legislative history it is clear that ORS was crafted in an attempt to strike an equitable balance between the need to limit manufacturer liability while still providing injured plaintiffs with adequate time to seek redress. Subsequent legislatures recognized plaintiffs did not have adequate time to seek redress when the statute of repose was applied to certain products. Therefore, exceptions to the statute were made. Whether the exceptions achieve social justice is a matter of opinion. Some argue that any exception to the fixed statute diminishes its efficacy, while others believe the current exceptions are not comprehensive enough and that additional exceptions are justified. Proposed Federal Legislation: The push for comprehensive federal products liability legislation also arose out of the so called crisis. Since 1982 successive attempts have failed to achieve enough support to become law. The 1997 attempt passed both houses only to fall victim to the President s veto. Currently, proposed legislation seeks to impose an 18 year statute of repose coupled with a 2 year statute of limitations for work place machinery. State Trends: While many jurisdictions have enacted specific time limitations for product liability actions, differences among the statutes far outnumber the simularities leaving no discernable trend. The political tension which dominates product liability legislation has in fact, yielded a wide range of different approaches. Oregon s fixed 8 year statute of repose and 2 year statute of limitations are quite typical of jurisdictions that apply fixed period statutes. Furthermore, Oregon s exceptions to the statute of repose are representative of the exceptions allowed in other jurisdictions with fixed statutes of repose. States that do not use fixed period statutes generally limit manufacturer liability to the useful safe life of the product. Whether fixed statutes or useful safe life determinations are more equitable depends on the perspective of the person answering the question. While fixed periods may unfairly limit liability when applied in specific cases, they are efficient in that case by case determinations are not necessary. Conversely, useful safe life statutes often require adjudication in order to appropriately draw the line of liability in each case.
3 Discussion ORS Legislative History: By the early 1970 s the country was in the midst of the so called products liability insurance crisis. There had been a vast increase in products liability cases, spurred on by the spread of strict liability in tort, set forth in Restatement (second) of Torts section 402A, published in More cases and higher awards resulted in an increase in products liability insurance premiums, with some smaller industries finding it difficult to purchase insurance. In 1975, an apparent problem arose in the field of product liability. A number of manufacturers and business periodicals alleged that product liability insurance had become unavailable or unaffordable. After some initial investigation, a Federal Interagency Task Force was established by the White House to study the product liability problem and report back to it...a report based on that document, entitled The Federal Interagency Task Force on Product Liability Briefing Report was released to the public on January 4, Final Report, Interagency Task Force on Product Liability. The Final Report was published on November 1, It recognized that the products liability insurance crisis was not a factor. It found, however, that a principal cause of the product liability problem was uncertainties in the tort litigation system and it recommended drafting of a Uniform Product Liability Act. The final report criticized the insurance industry for their lack of information regarding products liability claims and the basis for ratemaking. On October 31, 1979, a final Uniform Product Liability Act was published for individual adoption by the states. There was a general lack of enthusiasm for the Uniform Act and only bits and pieces were adopted by several states. When it became apparent that the states would not embrace the Uniform Act, the push began for federal legislation. There can be little doubt that ORS came about in large part due to the products liability frenzy happening around the country. By 1977 varying types of legislation had been introduced in almost every state for the purpose of imposing limitations upon recovery in products liability actions. Oregon certainly was not alone. Between 1976 and 1978 at least 28 states had enacted product liability reform. All of the reform measures included statutes of limitations and repose. In an effort to halt spiraling liability insurance costs, the legislature attempted to balance the competing equities of manufacturers and injured plaintiffs when it adopted ORS The defense bar argued that manufacturers and insurance companies should not be forced to defend lawsuits that arise years after a product was manufactured. They posited that the predictable limits of liability which statutes of repose guaranty, would stabilize insurance rates and manufacturing costs. Conversely, the plaintiffs bar claimed longer periods were necessary to detect harm, insurance rates are not significantly effected by statutes of repose and that manufacturers will make safer products if faced with the possibility of liability. Whether any significant connection between insurance costs and the alleged increase in product liability actions actually exists has been a matter of continuing debate. Evidence suggests that statutes of repose only affect a very small percentage of product liability suits which in themselves only represent a small fraction of the total number of tort claims. Stephen J.Werber, A National Product liability Statute of Repose Let s Not, 64 Tenn.L.Rev 763). Thus, their effect in stabilizing insurance
4 rates and product cost is questionable. In any event, the legislature was faced with the defense bar s strong lobbying effort and the opposing, but compelling interest of providing injured plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to discover the injury and commence an action. Accordingly the Oregon lawmakers fashioned an agreeable compromise, an eight year statute of repose coupled with a two year statute of limitations. They effectively capped manufacturer liability at ten years while still providing adequate recourse to injured plaintiffs. The courts have been consistent in their interpretations of the legislative history and the conclusions above are uniformly supported in the case law. Real problems of statutory construction have occurred, however, when the courts have tried to apply the statute. In their efforts to reconcile the statute as written with the express legislative intent, the courts have relied extensively on the statutory history. Three decisions are particularly instructive: Baird v. Electromart Factory Direct, 47 Or.App. 565, 615 P.2d 335 (1980) (Resource Guide 1 ); Dortch v. A.H. Robins Co., 59 Or.App. 310, 650 P.2d 1046 (1982) (Resource Guide); Erickson Air-Crane Co. v. United Technologies, 303 Or. 81, 735 P.2d 614 (1987) (Resource Guide). In Baird, the plaintiff s home was damaged when her television set exploded on January 1, 1978 and she filed suit against the manufacturer March 19,1979. Since plaintiff had purchased the set on March 7, 1970 the defendant argued that the express language of the statute clearly required the action be commenced within the eight year statute of repose and the claim should be barred. Conversely, the plaintiff claimed that the language of provided up to ten years to bring a suit so long as the injury occurred in the first eight years.the court looked to the statutory history and found that the legislature intended to create an eight year statute of repose coupled with a two year statute of limitations. The statute of repose begins to run from a date certain, e.g. the date of manufacture or purchase, whereas the statute of limitations begins to run once the product causes a cognizable injury. The two operate together to provide plaintiffs up to ten years to bring an action. The Baird construction disregards the express wording of the statute and gives effect to the manifest intent of the legislature. 615 P.2d at 337. The committee determined, as a policy matter, that it wished to limit the manufacturer s exposure to a ten-year period. Id. The court went on to identify the paramount policy behind statutes of ultimate repose as a need to halt tort actions after a period of time because the evidence to support or contest liability becomes unavailable or unreliable. Id. Proponents of abolishing repose statutes now argue that new technology and better record keeping in the modern world makes reliable evidence available many years after production. In Dortch, the plaintiff was injured by a defective intra uterine device (IUD). She became aware of the injury to her body within eight years, but she did not know of the connection between the defendant manufacturer and the injury until after eight years had passed. The majority held that actionable injury within eight years of the date of purchase is the sine qua non of the grace period and that a cause of action is not actionable until the defendant is recognized as the source of harm. 650 P.2d at 1056 (Rossman dissenting). In other words, the court formulated and applied a discovery rule which requires discovery of both the injury and the tortfeasor within the eight year period of repose. Judge Rossman s dissent examines the legislative history of ORS to show how the majority s solution actually violates the legislative intent. He explained the problem thus: The application of a discovery rule in itself provides a grace period of sorts; i.e., during the period an
5 injury sustained is either undiscovered or its cause unknown, the applicable statute of limitation does not run. When the injury is sustained within eight years of the product s purchase, such a situation creates an anomaly in the system designed by the legislature and explained and applied in Baird. To allow the plaintiff a full two years from the date of discovery may extend the exposure of potential defendants beyond the intended ten year limitation on the commencement of product liability actions. To require the plaintiff to file an action within the two years of the date of injury is sustained assures that the action will be commenced in all cases within the ten-year period but will not give every potential plaintiff two years in which to bring an action; i.e., the two-year period runs even though the plaintiff is unaware of the injury. Neither alternative is consistent with the legislative intent. Both the majority and dissenting opinions in Dortch include numerous citations and quotes from the minutes of the House Committee on the Judiciary meetings of Erickson holds that ORS applies only to acts, omissions or conditions existing or occurring before or at the date on which the product was first purchased for use or consumption. 735 P.2d at 616. In support of the holding, Justice Gillette sums up the legislative history of ORS this way: [T]he assumption throughout legislative consideration of and the rationale behind HB 3039 was that manufacturers, distributors, sellers and lessors should have the benefit of a limited and predictable time period during which they would be exposed to liability for defects that existed when the product left a respective party s hands. That time period, codified in ORS (1), was the result of a compromise by business and insurance organizations in that the act or omission of the manufacturer covered by ORS to occurs when the manufacturer makes the product, but the time limitation does not begin to run until the time of purchase. Id, 735 P.2d at 616, 617 (Citing, Minutes, House committee on the Judiciary 9, 12 (May 16, 1977). Proposed Federal Legislation: Federal lawmakers have been attempting to pass a uniform federal product liability act for nearly twenty years. Recently, the 104 th Congress passed the Common Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act, but were unable to override President Clinton s veto. 64 Tenn.L.Rev. 763; See Product Liability Reform Act of 1997, Report of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (1997) (Resource Guide). The so called Common Sense Act provided for an eighteen year statute of ultimate repose, which is longer than the current period of repose in any state, and a two year statute of limitations. Id. These limitations would apply to states as a ceiling leaving the states free to decide on shorter periods. Furthermore, the repose period would not apply to toxic torts, or to: vehicles, aircraft, trains and boats used for carrying passengers for hire. On September 22, 1999 the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill that provides for an 18 year statute of repose for workplace machinery. BNA Product Liability Daily, September 24, This bill also provides exemptions for injuries caused by toxic torts, automobiles and aircraft. Id. It remains to be seen whether this legislation will survive the President s scrutiny. The federal lawmakers are faced with the same fundamental policy question that has confounded state lawmakers: at what point does limiting manufacturer liability outweigh the interest in providing redress
6 to injured plaintiffs? And, even if this theoretical point in time can be sufficiently identified with regard to a single product, how can generally applicable statutes of repose equitably account for the wide differences between products? The best a statute can do is to approximate the market average optimum point and then apply that point to all products regardless of individual deviations. Some manufacturers will be exposed to an inordinate period of potential liability given the relatively brief intended life of their product. On the other end of the spectrum, manufacturers whose products cause injury only after long latency periods will escape liability altogether. The abbreviated 1997 Senate Report, which contains a representative federal proposal with arguments for and against national product liability legislation is available in the companion Resource Guide. For a full history and discussion of the federal products liability effort See, Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A. Behrens, Federal Product Liability Reform in 1997: History and Public Policy Support its Enactment Now, 64 Tenn.L.Rev. 595 (Resource Guide); Stephen J. Werber, A National Product liability Statute of Repose Let s Not, 64 Tenn.L.Rev 763 (Resource Guide). State Trends: Almost all states have enacted products liability statutes of limitation. Oregon s two year statute is quite typical. Furthermore, either by codification or judicial interpretation, most states, including Oregon, apply a discovery rule to the limitations period. Thus, little debate currently exists regarding this aspect of products liability. Statutes of repose, on the other hand, are the source of great discord. In fact, some states have declared statutes of repose unconstitutional under the open courts provisions of their state constitutions. Oregon does not have an open courts provision per sé, and the constitutionality of our statute is not in question. Sealey v. Hicks, 309 Or. 387, 788 P.2d 435 (1990). Two main trends exist regarding statutes of repose: fixed statutory periods of repose coupled with exceptions for products or classes of products that because of their unique potential to cause harm, are not amenable to equitable limitations based on a fixed period; and, useful safe life limitations. Again, which method best prevents unsafe products and equitably apportions the costs of product liability is largely a matter of opinion informed by the economic interest of the person or group expressing the opinion. Oregon has adopted the fixed statutory period and as indicated in the May 16, 2000 from Steve Blackhurst (Resource Guide), Oregon has subsequently made exceptions to the statute for certain products. As Mr. Blackhurst notes, the exceptions seem to have been made on an ad hoc basis at the behest of particular plaintiffs. Because of the intense political tension surrounding products liability, it has been difficult to proactively enact principled exceptions. There is nothing like a concrete example of manifest injustice to shock the conscious and engender support for legislative action. Reactive legislation, while helpful for the product at hand, leaves behind a residue of legal uncertainty. Clearly a statute which applies without exception to all products will be manifestly unjust in some circumstances. Absent the exception for asbestos, for example, Oregon victims would effectively be barred from seeking redress from culpable manufacturers. Ultimately, either the victim or the state would bear the cost of the injury and the manufacturer would escape liability. Accordingly, all jurisdictions which have fixed period statutes of repose also have exceptions for some products. Whether or not the products receiving exception are worthy is strictly a matter of opinion about social justice. The particular exceptions in Oregon s
7 statute are regarded by most jurisdictions as worthy of special treatment. Certainly, a strong case can be made that other products also justify exception. Conversely, the manufacturing industry and defense bar formulate compelling arguments against the existing exceptions. Obviously, universal agreement in this arena, should not be expected any time soon. Many jurisdictions have enacted or support useful safe life statutes. These states attempt to balance the rights of persons injured by products against the argument that manufacturers should not be liable for eternity with respect to products they have manufactured. It has been argued that limiting manufacturer liability with respect to products to the ordinary useful life of that product is a more equitable solution to the problem. While useful safe life statutes are conceptually appealing to plaintiffs, because they allow for case by case, product by product, determination of liability and are thus more flexible and equitable than flat line statutes of repose, they are not perfect in their application. Compared to fixed period statutes, useful safe life statutes increase the need for judicial proceedings thereby reducing efficiency and predictable. Arguably, these characteristics substantially diminish the efficacy of useful safe life statutes. 1 The Resource Guide contains selected materials referenced in this Information Item. It is located in the Office of the Executive Director of the Oregon Law Commission and is available for review.
Strict 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 informationSTRICT LIABILITY. (1) involves serious potential harm to persons or property,
STRICT LIABILITY Strict Liability: Liability regardless of fault. Among others, defendants whose activities are abnormally dangerous or involve dangerous animals are strictly liable for any harm caused.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 29 June 7, 2018 105 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON En Banc Aline L. MILLER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. (United States Court of
More information) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO MAP ) ) PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 96-30047-MAP ) ) PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT a. There exists a factual dispute requiring jury determination when the defendant last parted with
More informationMARYLAND DEFENSE COUNSEL POSITION PAPER ON COMPARATIVE FAULT LEGISLATION
Contributory negligence has been the law of Maryland for over 150 years 1. The proponents of comparative negligence have no compelling reason to change the rule of contributory negligence. Maryland Defense
More informationThe section Causation: Actual Cause and Proximate Cause from Business Law and the Legal Environment was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a
The section Causation: Actual Cause and Proximate Cause from Business Law and the Legal Environment was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0
More informationCLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep an open
CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS I. GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep
More informationMark Solheim, Esq. & David Classen, Esq. Introduction. Minnesota s joint and several liability statute has been a frequent target for tort reform
A CALL FOR A PURPOSIVE APPROACH TO THE APPLICATION OF THE REALLOCATION PROVISIONS OF MINNESOTA S JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY STATUTE Mark Solheim, Esq. & David Classen, Esq. Introduction Minnesota s joint
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Torts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Autos, Inc. manufactures a two-seater
More informationChapter II, Book III, Code Civil Of Intentional and Unintentional Wrongs
Chapter II, Book III, Code Civil Of Intentional and Unintentional Wrongs Art. 1382 (now Art. 1240) Any act whatever of man, which causes damage to another, obliges the one by whose fault it occurred, to
More informationCONDENSED OUTLINE FOR TORTS I
Condensed Outline of Torts I (DeWolf), November 25, 2003 1 CONDENSED OUTLINE FOR TORTS I [Use this only as a supplement and corrective for your own more detailed outlines!] The classic definition of a
More informationTexas Tort Reform Legislation. By: Judge Mike Engelhart 151 st District Court
Texas Tort Reform Legislation By: Judge Mike Engelhart 151 st District Court Net Worth Discovery (S.B. 735) Protects private financial information from disclosure in litigation by allowing pretrial discovery
More informationCRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web
CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web 98-164 A Updated May 20, 1998 Uniform Standards in Private Securities Litigation: Limitations on Shareholder Lawsuits Michael V. Seitzinger Legislative
More informationNovember/December 2001
A publication of the Boston Bar Association Pro Rata Tort Contribution Is Outdated In Our Era of Comparative Negligence Matthew C. Baltay is an associate in the litigation department at Foley Hoag. His
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/30/ :06 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 60 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------x LEROY BAKER, Index No.: 190058/2017 Plaintiff, -against- AF SUPPLY USA INC.,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/11/ /30/ :42 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/11/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/11/2014 10/30/2014 12:42 PM INDEX NO. 190087/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 43 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/11/2014 10/30/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 1, 2011 Session at Knoxville
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 1, 2011 Session at Knoxville MICHAEL LIND v. BEAMAN DODGE, INC., d/b/a BEAMAN DODGE CHRYSLER JEEP ET AL. Appeal by Permission from the Court of
More informationFILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 01/27/ :26 PM
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ONEIDA -----------------------------------------------------------------------x FRANK JAKUBOWSKI and GLORIA JAKUBOWSKI, -against- Plaintiffs, A.O. SMITH
More informationPandemic Flu and Medical Biodefense Countermeasure Liability Limitation
Pandemic Flu and Medical Biodefense Countermeasure Liability Limitation Edward C. Liu Legislative Attorney February 12, 2010 Congressional Research Service CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members
More information6 Distribution Of The Estate
6 Distribution Of The Estate 6.01 WHAT IS A CLAIM? Whether something is a claim has two important consequences in a bankruptcy case. First, distribution of the assets of the estate is made only to holders
More informationSummary of Contents. PART I. INTRODUCTION Chapter 1. An Introduction to the Restatement of Torts... 2
Summary of Contents Director s Foreword... Editor s Foreword... iii v PART I. INTRODUCTION Chapter 1. An Introduction to the Restatement of Torts... 2 PART II. INTENTIONAL HARM TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY Chapter
More informationGovernment of the District of Columbia OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL JUDICIARY SQUARE 441FOURTH ST., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.
Government of the District of Columbia OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL JUDICIARY SQUARE 441FOURTH ST., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 BY E-MAIL Gene N. Lebrun, Esq. PO Box 8250 909 St. Joseph Street, S.
More informationHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT ANALYSIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT ANALYSIS BILL #: HB 491 RELATING TO: SPONSOR(S): TIED BILL(S): Comparative Fault/Negligence Cases Representatives Baker, Kottkamp, and others None
More informationSupreme Court Evaluates Consumer Expectations Test in Strict Liability Claims
Supreme Court Evaluates Consumer Expectations Test in Strict Liability Claims Armando G. Hernandez, Daily Business Review November 16, 2015 In one of the most highly anticipated opinions in recent memory
More informationPRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN TORT LAW
EUROPEAN GROUP ON TORT LAW AS OF JULY 3, 2004 OVERVIEW PART 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES TITLE I. Basic Norm Chapter 1. Basic norm TITLE II. General Conditions of Liability Chapter 2. Damage Chapter 3. Causation
More informationTORTS-THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT-ABSOLUTE LIABILITY, THE DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION EXCEPTION, SONIC BooMs. Laird v. Nelms, 92 S. Ct (1972).
TORTS-THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT-ABSOLUTE LIABILITY, THE DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION EXCEPTION, SONIC BooMs. Laird v. Nelms, 92 S. Ct. 1899 (1972). J IM NELMS, a resident of a rural community near Nashville,
More informationUniform Class Proceedings Act
8-1 Uniform Law Conference of Canada Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-2 Table of Contents PART I: DEFINITIONS 1 Definitions PART II: CERTIFICATION 2 Plaintiff s class proceeding 3 Defendant s class proceeding
More informationIllinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel P.O. Box 7288, Springfield, IL IDC Quarterly Vol. 11, No. 4 ( ) FEATURE ARTICLE:
FEATURE ARTICLE: An Island of Repose Amid the Swirling Sea of Asbestos Litigation By: Gregory L. Cochran and Margaret M. Foster McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Farrug, Chicago Introduction Over the past
More informationDEFENDING OTHER PARTIES IN THE CHAIN OF DISTRIBUTION
DEFENDING OTHER PARTIES IN THE CHAIN OF DISTRIBUTION Publication DEFENDING OTHER PARTIES IN THE CHAIN OF DISTRIBUTION July 16, 2009 On March 4, 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated
More information2. Denies knowledge and information suffrcient to form a belief with respect to
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEV/ YORK COUNTY OF ONEIDA In Te FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION This document applies to: FRANCIS JAKUBOWSKI and GLORIA JAKUBOWSKI, X Index No. EFCA2}I 6-00237
More informationThe Class Action Fairness Act: What Is It All About?
The Class Action Fairness Act: What Is It All About? By Marc S. Gaffrey and Jacob S. Grouser n Feb, 18, 2005, after the first bill signing ceremony of the year, President Bush approved the Class Action
More informationWhen New Data Give Way to Claims Over Old Contamination
When New Data Give Way to Claims Over Old Contamination By Steven C. Russo & Ashley S. Miller April 17, 2009 One of the most significant hazardous waste issues in New York and elsewhere over the past few
More informationUNIFORM LAW COMMISSIONER'S MODEL PUNITIVE DAMAGES ACT PREFATORY NOTE
UNIFORM LAW COMMISSIONER'S MODEL PUNITIVE DAMAGES ACT PREFATORY NOTE During the past decade serious concern has been expressed regarding the role of punitive damage awards in the civil justice system in
More informationStation 2 The people are represented in two ways: as states in the Senate and as 435 equally-populated, singlemember districts in the House of Represe
Station 1 The United States Congress represents the diverse interests of the American people The key concept is representation. But representation of what? Most students (and most Americans) do not fully
More informationNew Federal Initiatives Project. Executive Order on Preemption
New Federal Initiatives Project Executive Order on Preemption By Jack Park* September 4, 2009 The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies www.fed-soc.org Executive Order on Preemption On May
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/ :23 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/26/2015 01:23 PM INDEX NO. 190245/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/26/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationDefendant, Prevost Car (US) Inc., Individually and as. Successor to Nova Bus, by its attorneys, MAIMONE & ASSOCIATES,
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/08/2016 11:03 PM INDEX NO. 190300/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/08/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------X
More informationCase 2:15-cv GW-SS Document 35 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:523
Case :-cv-0-gw-ss Document Filed /0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 STEPHEN T. WAIMEY (SBN ) stephen.waimey@lhlaw.com YVONNE DALTON (SBN ) yvonne.dalton@lhlaw.com ANIKA S. PADHIAR (SBN ) anika.padhiar@lhlaw.com
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Torts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Manufacturer designed and manufactured
More informationAmerican Tort Reform Association 1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC (202) Fax: (202)
American Tort Reform Association 1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 682-1163 Fax: (202) 682-1022 www.atra.org As of December 31, 1999 1999 State Tort Reform Enactments Alabama
More informationDiversity Jurisdiction -- Admissibility of Evidence and the "Outcome-Determinative" Test
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 7-1-1961 Diversity Jurisdiction -- Admissibility of Evidence and the "Outcome-Determinative" Test Jeff D. Gautier
More information3. MODEL PLEURAL REGISTRY ORDER
3. MODEL PLEURAL REGISTRY ORDER Because of the long latency period for diseases resulting from exposure to asbestos, many asbestos cases are filed by persons who have been exposed but are not presently
More informationHomeland Security Act of 2002: Tort Liability Provisions
Order Code RL31649 Homeland Security Act of 2002: Tort Liability Provisions Updated May 9, 2008 Henry Cohen Legislative Attorney American Law Division Homeland Security Act of 2002: Tort Liability Provisions
More informationJeffrey V. Hill Bodyfelt Mount LLP 707 Southwest Washington St. Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon (503)
Jeffrey V. Hill Bodyfelt Mount LLP 707 Southwest Washington St. Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 243-1022 hill@bodyfeltmount.com LIQUOR LIABILITY I. Introduction Liquor Liability the notion of holding
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1086/15 BEFORE: R. McCutcheon: Vice-Chair HEARING: May 28, 2015 at Toronto Oral hearing Post-hearing activity completed on September 10, 2015
More informationWikiLeaks Document Release
WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS21933 Good Samaritan Tort Reform: Three House Bills Henry Cohen, American Law Division October 1, 2004 Abstract. On September
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/12/ :04 AM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 175 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/12/2015
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/12/2015 11:04 AM INDEX NO. 190275/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 175 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/12/2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationCase 2:13-cv DDP-VBK Document 864 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:36038 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-ddp-vbk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #:0 O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 VICTORIA LUND, individually and as successor-in-interest to WILLIAM LUND, deceased;
More informationHouse Bill 2005 Ordered by the House March 27 Including House Amendments dated March 27
th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--0 Regular Session A-Engrossed House Bill 00 Ordered by the House March Including House Amendments dated March Sponsored by Representatives LININGER, BYNUM, LIVELY, Senator
More informationTHE PROPOSED NEW BRUNSWICK JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT ACT QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
THE PROPOSED NEW BRUNSWICK JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT ACT QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT ACT -- QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 1. Pre-Judgment Remedies. The draft NBJEA proposes a system of pre-judgment
More informationTorts Tutorial Chapter 9 Product Liability
INTRODUCTION This program is designed to provide a review of basic concepts covered in a first-year torts class and is based on DeWolf, Cases and Materials on Torts (http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/torts/text).
More informationTable of Contents. Both petitioners and EPA are supported by numerous amici curiae (friends of the court).
Clean Power Plan Litigation Updates On October 23, 2015, multiple parties petitioned the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review EPA s Clean Power Plan and to stay the rule pending judicial review. This
More informationChapter 12: Products Liability
Law 580: Torts Thursday, November 19, 2015 November 24, 25 Casebook pages 914-965 Chapter 12: Products Liability Products Liability Prima Facie Case: 1. Injury 2. Seller of products 3. Defect 4. Cause
More informationPROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SENATE BILL 726
SB - (LC 0) // (JAS/ps) Requested by Senator TAYLOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SENATE BILL 0 0 On page of the printed bill, delete lines through. Delete pages through and insert: SECTION. Sections to of this
More informationMyTest for Smyth: The Law and Business Administrations, Thirteenth Edition Chapter 2: The Machinery of Justice
1) In addition to the two basic categories of public and private law, law is divided further into two more categories, which are a. criminal and contract law. b. domestic and international law. c. criminal
More informationMANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY: PRIVITY NOT REQUIRED
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS MANUFACTURER LIABLE FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY: PRIVITY NOT REQUIRED Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co., 167 Ohio St. 244, 147 N.E.2d 612 (1958) In her petition plaintiff alleged
More informationTHE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL AS AMENDED ON THIRD CONSIDERATION, JUNE 20, 2011 AN ACT
PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. PRINTER'S NO. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 1 Session of 0 INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF AND CORMAN, JUNE, 0 AS AMENDED ON THIRD CONSIDERATION, JUNE 0, 0 AN ACT 1 1
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DENNIS G. HUCKINS. MARK MCSWEENEY & a. Argued: February 12, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 11, 2014
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationTHE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY SCARNATI, CORMAN AND GORDNER, JANUARY 30, 2017 AN ACT
HOUSE AMENDED PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. PRINTER'S NO. 1 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 1 Session of 1 INTRODUCED BY SCARNATI, CORMAN AND GORDNER, JANUARY 0, 1 AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE
More informationCTS Corp. v. Waldburger
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2014 Case Summaries CTS Corp. v. Waldburger Lindsay M. Thane University of Montana School of Law, lindsay.thane@umontana.edu Follow this and additional
More informationThe Intersection of Product Liability and Regulatory Compliance by Kenneth Ross
Novem ber 15, 2013 Volum e 10 Issue 3 Featured Articles The Intersection of Product Liability and Regulatory Compliance by Kenneth Ross RJ Lee Group has helped resolve over 3,000 matters during the last
More informationInformation Brief. British Columbia Law Institute Workplace Dispute Resolution Consultation. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal Suite 1170, 605 Robson St. Vancouver BC V6B 5J3 Phone: (604) 775-2000 Toll Free: 1-888-440-8844 TTY: (604) 775-2021 FAX: (604) 775-2020 Internet: www.bchrt.bc.ca
More informationCase: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 08/18/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1
Case: 1:17-cv-06052 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/18/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION BENITO VALLADARES, individually and
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2014 INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2014
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/12/2014 INDEX NO. 190087/2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 25 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/12/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ALL COUNTIES WITHIN NEW YORK CITY ------------------------------------------------------------------------X
More informationJAPAN S 1995 PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW: WILL THE ADOPTION OF STRICT LIABILITY ALTER THE FUTURE OF LITIGATION IN JAPAN? *
JAPAN S 1995 PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW: WILL THE ADOPTION OF STRICT LIABILITY ALTER THE FUTURE OF LITIGATION IN JAPAN? * [Published in 9 International Quarterly 304-19 (April 1997); Legal Mind 81-104 (January
More informationPROFESSOR DEWOLF FALL 2009 December 12, 2009 FINAL EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER
TORTS PROFESSOR DEWOLF FALL 2009 December 12, 2009 FINAL EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. (A) is incorrect, because this statement omits the requirement that Blinker intended to cause such fear; (B)
More informationCase 2:13-cv BJR Document 111 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-00-bjr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE JAMES R. HAUSMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. cv00 BJR ) v. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationSPRING 2009 May 7, 2009 FINAL EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER MULTIPLE CHOICE
TORTS II PROFESSOR DEWOLF SPRIN 2009 May 7, 2009 FINAL EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. (A) is incorrect, because of the doctrine of transferred intent. (B) is incorrect, because Susan could still
More informationTIF for Smyth: The Law and Business Administrations, Fourteenth Edition Chapter 2: The Machinery of Justice
1) In addition to the two basic categories of public and private law, law is divided further into two more categories, which are a. criminal and contract law. b. domestic and international law. c. criminal
More information1999 Survey of Rhode Island Law: Cases: Products Liability
Roger Williams University Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 Article 25 Spring 2000 1999 Survey of Rhode Island Law: Cases: Products Liability Carly E. Beauvais Roger Williams University School of Law Follow
More informationTHE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY SCARNATI, CORMAN AND GORDNER, JANUARY 30, 2017
HOUSE AMENDED PRIOR PRINTER'S NOS., 1 PRINTER'S NO. 00 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 1 Session of 01 INTRODUCED BY SCARNATI, CORMAN AND GORDNER, JANUARY 0, 01 AS AMENDED ON SECOND
More informationCase 7:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case 7:18-cv-00321 Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARTIN ORBACH and PHILLIP SEGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed February 19, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Eliza J.
STEPHEN MARTIN SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 8-882 / 08-0365 Filed February 19, 2009 DUTTON-LAINSON COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Judge. Appeal from the Iowa District
More informationInverse Condemnation and the Law of Waters
Inverse Condemnation and the Law of Waters DANIEL R. MANDELKER School of Law, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. This paper deals with research on recent trends of legislation and court decisions pertaining
More informationProfessor DeWolf Summer 2014 Torts August 18, 2014 SAMPLE ANSWER TO FINAL EXAM MULTIPLE CHOICE
Professor DeWolf Summer 2014 Torts August 18, 2014 SAMPLE ANSWER TO FINAL EXAM MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. (a) Is incorrect, because from Dempsey s perspective the injury was not substantially certain to occur.
More informationWESTPHAL V. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO CHAPTER 440 By Jill Spears (407)
WESTPHAL V. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO CHAPTER 440 By Jill Spears (407)839-0120 Jill.spears@rissman.com The First DCA recently held that the 104 week cap on TTD benefits
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION. ClassAction.
Filing # 62197581 E-Filed 09/29/2017 01:53:34 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION ANDERSON MORENO, a minor, by and through his
More informationASBESTOS LITIGATION ALERT
A. PARTIES FILE RESPONSES TO AMICI BRIEFS IN CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT COMPONENT PARTS DISPUTE O Neil, et al., v. Crane Co., et al.,, No. S177401, petition filed (Calif. Sup. Ct. Sept. 18, 2009) In a dispute
More informationThe Board of Public Utilities & the State Legislature: A Working Relationship In New Jersey
The Board of Public Utilities & the State Legislature: A Working Relationship In New Jersey The government of the State of New Jersey, like that of the United States, is divided into three co-equal branches:
More informationRECENT INAPPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS ON SEVERAL LIABILITY
RECENT INAPPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS ON SEVERAL LIABILITY By: David H. Levitt * Hinshaw & Culbertson Chicago In 1986, the Illinois legislature enacted 735 ILCS 5/2-1117. That statute provided that defendants
More informationWhite v. State: Raising the Stakes of State Tort Claims
Montana Law Review Volume 45 Issue 1 Winter 1984 Article 7 January 1984 White v. State: Raising the Stakes of State Tort Claims Michael P. Heringer University of Montana School of Law Follow this and additional
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION November 8, 2005 9:15 a.m. v No. 254466 Kent Circuit Court F.C. SCHOLZ, III, BULTSMA EXCAVATING, LC No.
More informationPreemptive Effect of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act
Preemptive Effect of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act The Bill Emerson G ood Samaritan Food Donation Act preem pts state good Samaritan statutes that provide less protection from civil
More informationYOU PAY FOR YOUR WRONG AND NO ONE ELSE S: THE ABOLITION OF JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
30 YOU PAY FOR YOUR WRONG AND NO ONE ELSE S: THE ABOLITION OF JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY By: Alice Chan In April 2006, Florida abolished the doctrine of joint and several liability in negligence cases.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES WITH JURY DEMAND
Antrobus et al v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Lynette Antrobus, Individually c/o John Mulvey, Esq. 2306 Park Ave., Suite 104
More informationCircuit Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D. October, 1887.
YesWeScan: The FEDERAL REPORTER STATE EX REL. BARTON CO. V. KANSAS CITY, FT. S. & G. R. CO. Circuit Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D. October, 1887. 1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW POLICE POWER REGULATION OP RAILROAD
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/ :27 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/07/2016 11:27 AM INDEX NO. 190093/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 16 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/07/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK LESLIE FOGEL and CATHERINE
More informationQuestion 1. Under what theory or theories might Paul recover, and what is his likelihood of success, against: a. Charlie? b. KiddieRides-R-Us?
Question 1 Twelve-year-old Charlie was riding on his small, motorized 3-wheeled all terrain vehicle ( ATV ) in his family s large front yard. Suddenly, finding the steering wheel stuck in place, Charlie
More informationThe Legal Relationship Between Counties and Sheriffs Past, Present and Future. Introduction
Introduction The Legal Relationship Between Counties and Sheriffs Past, Present and Future The relationship between each county and its sheriff is fraught with political, budgetary, territorial, and performance
More information: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF DEFENDANT FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL LLC IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S OMNIBUS MOTION
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO GASPAR HERNANDEZ-VEGA Plaintiff, -against- AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al.,
More informationSUMMER 1995 August 11, 1995 SAMPLE ANSWER TO FINAL EXAM
TORTS II PROFESSOR DEWOLF SUMMER 1995 August 11, 1995 SAMPLE ANSWER TO FINAL EXAM QUESTION 1 Many issues are presented in this question for resolution. To summarize, Jamie, Sam and Dorothy should consider
More informationA Duty To Warn For The Other Manufacturer's Product?
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 Duty To Warn For The Other Manufacturer's Product?
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/ :53 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/04/2016 12:53 PM INDEX NO. 190187/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 17 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/04/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ANGELO C. ABRUZZINO and BARBARA
More informationNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION 79 TH Annual Convention & Exhibits
NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION 79 TH Annual Convention & Exhibits Complex Product Liability: The Plaintiff s Perspective of Evaluating and Preparing a Winning Case. LaBarron Boone Kendall C. Dunson Rodney Barganier
More informationAPPORTIONMENT OF FAULT TO A NON-PARTY POINTING FINGERS TO VICTORY
APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT TO A NON-PARTY POINTING FINGERS TO VICTORY By David C. Marshall, Christian J. Lang and Marcus W. Wisehart David C. Marshall Christian J. Lang Apportioning fault to a non-party is
More informationTHE BUILDING CONTROL AMENDMENT REGULATIONS. Martin Waldron BL
MARTIN WALDRON BL FCIArb MSCSI MRICS Accredited Adjudicator & Mediator Law Library The Four Courts Dublin 7 +353(1)8177865 +353(86)2395167 www.waldron.ie martin@waldron.ie THE BUILDING CONTROL AMENDMENT
More information2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
933 A.2d 967 Page 1 (Cite as: ) Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. MERCER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff v. Joseph N. PROUDMAN, Sr., The Estate of Marie E. Proudman, Korman Residential
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON
No. 126 March 21, 2018 811 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Rich JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOUR CORNERS ROD AND GUN CLUB, an Oregon non-profit corporation, Defendant-Respondent. Kip
More information3:18-cv MGL Date Filed 07/31/18 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
3:18-cv-02106-MGL Date Filed 07/31/18 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Ronnie Portee, Plaintiff, vs. Apple Incorporated; Asurion
More information