Search for: "In Re Baycol Products Litigation"
Results 21 - 40
of 71
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jun 2011, 7:09 am
Rost has experience with class action, product liability, false claims/qui tam & criminal cases. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 3:19 am
The federal court of appeals in fact unanimously affirmed, holding that the injunction was authorized by the All Writs Act and the re-litigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, and that petitioners did not have a due process right to re-litigate class certification. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 7:36 pm
CITGO Petroleum Corp. (5th Cir. 1998) 151 F.3d 402, 418-420 [finding no abuse of discretion where district court refused to certify claims for punitive damages for class treatment under Rule 23(b)(3) in Title VII action because these claims “require[] individualized and independent proof of injury to, and the means by which discrimination was inflicted upon, each class member,” the claims “must therefore focus almost entirely on facts and issues specific to individuals rather than… [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 12:36 pm
Tire Products Litigation, 333 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that absent class members are in privity to the parties in the prior action). [read post]
16 Jun 2011, 9:19 am
The SCOTUS ruling reversed a prior Eighth Circuit decision entitled In Re Baycol Products Liability Products Litigation, 593 F. 3d 716 (8th Cir. 2010). [read post]
19 May 2011, 1:15 pm
Likewise, the court in In re Baycol Products Litigation, 532 F. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 1:49 pm
App. 1994); In re Baycol Products Litigation, 2003 WL 22331294, at *2-3 (D. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 7:51 am
Rost has experience with class action, product liability, false claims/qui tam & criminal cases. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 7:48 am
The court of appeals in fact unanimously affirmed, holding that the injunction was authorized by the All Writs Act and the re-litigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, and that petitioners did not have a due-process right to re-litigate class certification. [read post]
18 Jan 2011, 5:00 am
The Eighth Circuit affirmed such an injunction in In re: Baycol Products Litigation, 593 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2010). [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 2:23 pm
Bayer is an appeal of a case that did make my top 10 list, In re Baycol Products Litigation, 593 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2010). [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 9:45 pm
Medical Device: MEDICAL DEVICE SUPPLIER ISN'T 'HEALTH CARE PROVIDER', Orthopedic Res. v. [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 9:45 am
Here, in chronological order, are 10 key developments from the year that was: January 5 – In In re Baycol Products Litigation, the Eighth Circuit follows the Seventh Circuit’s lead in upholding the right of a federal court to enjoin a putative statewide class action from proceeding where a federal court had already denied class certification in a case involving substantially similar claims. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 12:54 pm
Stick a fork in economic loss class actions derivative of supposed product liability defects – they’re done. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 1:54 pm
” That’s what you're going to hear. [read post]
2 Oct 2010, 8:43 am
Rost has experience with class action, product liability, false claims/qui tam & criminal cases. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
Kan. 1996).In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation, 168 F.R.D. 577 (E.D. [read post]
27 May 2010, 3:40 pm
”In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation, 1997 WL 80527 (E.D. [read post]
24 May 2010, 3:13 am
Motors Corp., 243 F.3d 441, 444-45 (8th Cir.2001); In re Baycol Products Litigation, 532 F.Supp.2d 1029. [read post]
20 May 2010, 12:46 pm
In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation, 671 F. [read post]
