Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[09/08] Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co.
In plaintiffs' suit against several manufacturers of welding supplies, claiming that the fumes from their products had caused his parkinsonism and that labels on the products had failed to warn of the danger, jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed as the district court exceeded its discretion in admitting an expert's opinion that the manufacturers' products triggered "manganese-induced parkinsonism" in plaintiff, because the "knowledge" requirement of Rule 702 requires more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.

[09/08] Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Univ. Crop Protection Alliance, LLC
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that a pollution exclusion in defendant's insurance policy relieved plaintiff of any obligation to defend or indemnify defendant, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) in the insurance policy coverage context, a declaratory judgment action is ripe irrespective of whether the underlying litigation is ongoing or resolved; and 2) the underlying complaint made clear the relofted particulates at issue were toxic, and therefore, would qualify as "pollutants" under the policy.

[09/08] Wilcox v. Homestake Mining Co.
In an action brought under the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. section 2210, claiming that plaintiffs suffered cancer due to exposure to radiation from defendants' uranium mill, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no basis in New Mexico law for extending the exception to the but-for causation requirement beyond the limited bounds the court described in interpreting the Restatement view under Colorado law in June; and 2) to the extent Tafoya altered the but-for test in situations where a defendant's actions aggravated but did not cause an injury, it was not applicable in this case.

[09/08] Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.
In an action alleging that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), working in concert with other government agencies and officials of foreign governments, operated an extraordinary rendition program to gather intelligence by apprehending foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorist activities and transferring them in secret to foreign countries for detention and interrogation by U.S. or foreign officials, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the Reynolds state secret privilege may be asserted at any time, even at the pleading stage; and 2) at least some of the matters the government sought to protect from disclosure in the litigation were valid state secrets, which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.

More...

Consumer Products

[06/22] Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solutions, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit brought under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons who entered into copy rental agreements with defendant and who were overcharged for copies, trial court's judgment sustaining defendant's general demurrer without leave to amend is affirmed as plaintiff's UCL cause of action accrued more than four years before he filed his action, and the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to the circumstances of this case.

[06/21] Target Corp. v. US
Court of International Trade's affirmance of the U.S. Department of Commerce's final affirmative circumvention determination that petroleum wax candles with 50% or more vegetable wax are later-developed merchandise covered by the anti-dumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from China is affirmed as Commerce's reasonable interpretation of the relevant Congressional statute is entitled to Chevron deference and it's determination rested on substantial evidence.

[06/18] Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. US
In an appeal brought by three importers of foreign made goods from the Court of International Trade's denial of their request for judicial review of certain modifications to the U.S. Tariff schedule made by Presidential proclamation, the decision is affirmed where: 1) the Commission's recommendations under section 3005 are not "final" and consequently are not subject to judicial review under the APA; and 2) trial court correctly held that the Presidential proclamation at issue was not reviewable based on the claim that the Commission's recommendation was legally flawed.

More...