Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “American Family Mutual Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.”
499 F.Supp.2d 1137 (2007) Deshanda CRUSSELL, as Next Friend and Custodial Parent of J.C., a Minor, Plaintiff v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant. No. 4:06-CV-4042. United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division. August 10, 2007. Thomas H. Johnson, Attorney at Law, Texarkana, AR, for Plaintiff. J. Michael Smith,
In re Electrolux Dryer Products Liability Litigationpublic domain
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman. Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the American Family Mutual Insurance Company (“American Family”), a plaintiff in three actions, moves to centralize this litigation, which consists of 35 actions1 pending in 21 districts as listed on Schedule A, in the Northern District of Illinoi
Electrolux Home Products v. United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workerspublic domain
MELLOY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Electrolux Home Products (“Electrolux”) appeals the district court’s 1 denial of its motion for summary judgment on a claim to vacate an industrial arbitration award. Electrolux also appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellees on a cla
Electrolux Home Products v. The United Automobile Aerospace And Agricultural Implement Workers Of Americapublic domain
416 F.3d 848 ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, Plaintiff—Appellant,v.THE UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA; The United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local No. 442 Defendants—Appellees. No. 04-4080. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: June 23, 2005.
Pekarek v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.public domain
672 F.Supp.2d 1161 (2009) Kevin and Diana PEKAREK, Plaintiffs, v. SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. No. 06-1026-WEB. United States District Court, D. Kansas. September 30, 2008. *1163 Named Expert: William T. Cronenwett, Chris Komarek George E. McLaughlin, McDermott, Hansen & McLaughlin, LLP, Denver, CO, Todd B. Butle
George Tershakovec v. Ford Motor Company, Inc.public domain
USCA11 Case: 22-10575 Document: 65-1 Date Filed: 07/07/2023 Page: 1 of 92 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-10575 ____________________ GEORGE TERSHAKOVEC, D
In re Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigationpublic domain
OPINION & ORDER Seibel, United States District Judge. Table of Contents I.Background.. .408 A. Background Applicable to Both Cases.. .408 B. Background Related to Jennifer Dan-ley. . .410 C. Background Related to Christie Hayes.. .411 II. Discussion.. .411 A. Legal Standard.. .411
In re Tylenol (Acetaminophen) Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigationpublic domain
*283MEMORANDUM Stengel, District Judge This case is part of a Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) involving claims of liver damage from the use of Tylenol at or just above the recommended dosage.1 This is the first “bellwether” scheduled for trial.2 *284
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AMY J. ST. EVE, District Court Judge: In this consolidated, multi-district litigation (“MDL”), Plaintiffs1 are purchasers and users of a paint product called “Deck *778& Concrete Restore” or “Restore 10X” (collectively “Restore”), manufactured by Defendant Rust-Oleum Corporation (“Rust-O
Theresa Graham v. R.J Reynolds Tobacco Companypublic domain
WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judge: This appeal presents the questions whether due process forbids giving a jury’s findings of negligence and strict liability in a class action against cigarette manufacturers preclusive effect in a later individual suit by a class member and, if not, whether federal law preempts the jury’s findings. Florida smokers and their survivors filed a class action against several tobacco companies, and aft
Herman v. Seaworld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.public domain
ORDER MARY S. SCRIVEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 93) filed by Plaintiffs, Jason Herman, William Cohen, Joey Kratt, and Christina Lancaster, the Response in opposition thereto (Dkt. 99) filed by Defendant, SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc. (“SeaWorld”), and the Supplement (Dkt. 115) filed by Plaintiffs;
in Re: Giant Eagle, Inc.public domain
ACCEPTED 05-15-01292-CV 05-15-01292-CV FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS
Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc.public domain
678 F.Supp.2d 1280 (2009) Sharon ANDERSON and George Anderson, Plaintiffs, v. DUNBAR ARMORED, INC.; Harry A. Kocopi, Individually and as the Director of Employee Relations for Dunbar Armored, Inc.; Ashley R. Mew, Individually and as the Branch Manager for Dunbar Armored, Inc.; and Horace Johnson, Individually and as the General Manager of Dunbar Armored, Inc., Defendants. Civil Action File No. 1:08-CV-3639-BBM.
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Caught-On-Bleu, Inc.public domain
288 F.Supp.2d 105 (2003) ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC. v. CAUGHT-ON-BLEU, INC. No. Civ. 02-196-JD. United States District Court, D. New Hampshire. October 9, 2003. *106 *107 Kimberly Ann Sutherland, Chicago, IL, for Robert Petit, Richard E Alder, John F Apel, Amy Bagans, William Baldree, William Barron
943 F.Supp. 1445 (1996) JONES DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC., an Iowa corporation, Plaintiff, v. WHITE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and Frigidaire Company, a division thereof, Defendants. No. C 94-4029-MWB. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division. September 15, 1996. *1446
United States v. Juan Carlos Acosta Hurtadopublic domain
USCA11 Case: 21-12702 Document: 73-1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023 Page: 1 of 42 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12702 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Ammerman v. Raymond Corp.public domain
JUSTICE GREIMAN delivered the opinion of the court: Raymond Corporation (Raymond), one of the named defendants in plaintiff Shala Ammerman’s products liability and negligence action, appeals from a trial court order denying its motion to transfer the case pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. On appea
230 P.3d 1275 (2010) GENERAL STEEL DOMESTIC SALES, LLC, d/b/a General Steel Corporation, a Colorado limited liability company; and Jeffrey W. Knight, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HOGAN & HARTSON, LLP, a foreign limited liability partnership; and Ty Cobb, Defendants-Appellees. No. 09CA0252. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. VI. March 18, 2010.
de Vries v. L & L Custom Builderspublic domain
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 03/14/2022 08:08 AM CDT - 543 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports DE VRIES v. L & L CUSTOM BUILDERS Cite as 310 Neb. 543 Tabe de Vries, an individual,
Ammerman v. Raymond Corp.public domain
884 N.E.2d 1221 (2008) Shala AMMERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The RAYMOND CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant (Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant; XPAC, Third-Party Defendant). No. 1-07-1666. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division. February 27, 2008. *1224 Kralovec, Jambois & Schwartz, Chicago (Robert J. Kelleher,