Search for: "Searles v. State of Maine"
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Mar 2019, 10:43 am
A 1997 ruling by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in Searles v. [read post]
16 Sep 2008, 4:35 am
Searle, and posted on this blog, long ago, about Rochester v. [read post]
7 Aug 2017, 6:25 am
Maine 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]
10 Jul 2008, 5:31 pm
June 17, 1999).Maine: Violette v. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm
Searle & Co., 748 F. [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 10:37 am
Mo. 2007).Maine: Violette 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]
15 Apr 2010, 4:36 pm
Lilly; URochester 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]
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]
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]
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]
24 May 2007, 10:40 am
Searle & Co., 775 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]
31 Jul 2018, 7:58 am
Accordingly, it seems reasonable to interpret the Teva v. [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]
11 Jan 2022, 12:03 pm
[v].) [read post]
