Search for: "Searles v. State of Maine"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jan 2022, 12:03 pm
[v].) [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 1:50 pm
P’ship v. [read post]
1 Mar 2019, 10:43 am
A 1997 ruling by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in Searles v. [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 7:58 am
Accordingly, it seems reasonable to interpret the Teva v. [read post]
7 Aug 2017, 6:25 am
Maine v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
By our count, federal judges have trampled over state sovereignty with respect to the heeding presumption in no fewer than eleven states – Alaska, Colorado (despite contrary state-court authority), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New York (despite contrary state-court authority), South Dakota, and Wyoming.Finally, because various states have taken quite different approaches to whether a heeding presumption exists at… [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 5:02 pm
United States ex rel. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 11:55 am
June. 13, 2013), holding essentially that, since those meanies on the United States Supreme Court aren’t letting plaintiffs sue generic manufacturers, we’ll change Alabama common law and let them sue someone else. [read post]
3 Sep 2012, 3:56 am
Fellow Kat Nicola Searle (the Katonomist) ventures across the border from Scotland to speak, while 1709 Blogger Iona Harding comes from even further afield as she returns from Canada to make her contribution. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 2:20 pm
The IPKat's excellent and scholarly friend Norman Siebrasse tells him that he has recently become aware of a recent Canadian decision, Nazerali v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 10:27 am
In particular, because of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Searle & Co., 748 F. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm
At least the state of the art at the time of the plaintiff’s use applies – unknown and later discovered risks are irrelevant. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am
We, of course think that's wrong under Erie - where the default should be, if a form of liability hasn't been recognized by a state court, then it should be dismissed by a federal court applying that state's law in a diversity action.ConnecticutIn Gerrity v. [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 4:36 pm
Lilly; URochester v. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Crown Equipment Corp., 501 F.3d 75, 78 (1st Cir. 2007) (applying Maine law); Ahlberg v. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Crown Equipment Corp., 501 F.3d 75, 78 (1st Cir. 2007) (applying Maine law); Ahlberg v. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Crown Equipment Corp., 501 F.3d 75, 78 (1st Cir. 2007) (applying Maine law); Ahlberg v. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 5:09 am
Crown Equipment Corp., 501 F.3d 75, 78 (1st Cir. 2007) (applying Maine law); Ahlberg v. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 2:05 am
La. 1988), aff'd, 864 F.2d 789 (5th Cir. 1988).Maine: Porter v. [read post]
