Search for: "In Re Gypsum Cases" Results 1 - 20 of 54
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Nov 2014, 8:00 am by Todd Presnell
In this antitrust MDL case, the plaintiff sought production of CertainTeed Gypsum, Inc. [read post]
13 Nov 2014, 8:00 am by Todd Presnell
In this antitrust MDL case, the plaintiff sought production of CertainTeed Gypsum, Inc. [read post]
8 Sep 2009, 4:24 am
In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, No. 09-md-02047 (E.D. [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 7:02 am by Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Glassman
Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. following two jury trials – the first that determined liability and compensatory damages and a second limited re-trial that solely weighed the issue of punitive damages after the first could not reach a consensus. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 7:51 am by Michael S. Levine and S. Alice Weeks
The United States Supreme Court recently accepted review of In re Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 60 F.4th 73 (4th Cir. 2023), a Fourth Circuit decision concerning “whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a ‘party in interest’ that may object to a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 12:56 pm
National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350-53 (2d Cir. 1993). [read post]
20 Mar 2024, 11:24 am by Ronald Mann
… [W]hat you’re suggesting to us is that they don’t have a right to say the plan is violating a bunch of other provisions of the Code … I’ve just never heard of parsing standing in that way. [read post]
24 May 2018, 12:27 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Longi,759 F.2d 887, 892 (Fed. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 11:46 am by Schachtman
National Gypsum Co., 739 F. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 4:47 am
See In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2047 (JPML). [read post]
5 Oct 2009, 8:04 am
"If they're not willing to appear in a court of the U.S., you shouldn't be able to do business here. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 8:28 am by Dennis Crouch
Although Gracenote seemingly promised to seek reexamination, no reexamination request has been filed in the six years since this case was decided. [read post]