Cases

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of -- ) ) CDM Constructors, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 60454, 60455, 60669 ) Under Contract No. W912PL-12-C-0022 ) APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Bret S. Wacker, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gallant, Esq.

TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE Michael J. Martin ("Plaintiff") brought this products liability claim against Tricam Industries, Inc., Home Depot Supply, Inc. and Home Depot USA, Inc. ("Defendants") after a ladder he was standing on collapsed, causing severe injuries. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims because they believe that Plaintiff's deposition testimony has undermined his theories of defect and causation.

424 Argued and submitted May 21, 2019, reversed and remanded June 16, 2021 OREGON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH DIVISION, Petitioner, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board 1600012SH; A168084 494 P3d 959 In

DISSENT GILDEA, Chief Justice (dissenting). The circumstances of this case are both disturbing and tragic. But it is not reasonable, as a matter of law, common sense, or public policy, to expect a manufacturer to foresee—absent any admissible evidence— *634that the safety device it installed on the machine would be disabled and that

MEMORANDUM Stewart Dalzell, Judge. I. Introduction Plaintiff Kenneth Wright was injured on March 5, 2013 while using a Ryobi Model *444RTS10 table saw, serial no. XX115150384. Wright brings a strict liability claim for design defect and failure-to-warn, a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, -and a general ne

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of-- ) ) Hanley Industries, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 56584 ) Under Contract No. W52P1J-05-C-0076 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Ryan K. Manger, Esq. Manger Law, LLC

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO PRECLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT . C. ASHLEY ROYAL, District Judge. Before the Court in this products liability action are the following Motions filed by Defendant BGHA, Inc. d/b/a Big Game Treestands: Motion to Preclude Gary M. Bakken from Testifying at Trial; Motion to Preclude Irving Ojalvo from Testifying

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER JAMES L. ROBART, United States District Judge I.INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court on the parties’ dispute regarding the construction of certain patent claim terms. The court has reviewed the parties’ claim construction briefs (Pltf. Op. Br. (Dkt. # 38); Def. Op. Br. (Dkt. # 39); Pltf. Resp. (Dkt. # 41); Def. Resp. (Dkt. # 42)), all materials fil

OPINION Richard W. Goldberg, Senior Judge BACKGROUND This case arises from the classification of merchandise under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”). Plaintiff Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (“Home Depot”

MEMORANDUM CATHERINE C. BLAKE, District Judge. Plaintiff Todd Heckman brought this action against defendants Ryder Truck Rental (“Ryder”) and Mickey Truck Bodies (“Mickey”) for serious injuries sustained after a door strap attached to one of the defendants’ trucks broke while Heckman was delivering beer for his employer, Wantz Distributors, Inc. (‘Wantz”). The following motions are fully briefe

625 F.3d 97 (2010) Francis J. FARINA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. NOKIA INC.; NEC America; Ericsson Wireless Comm., Inc.; Motorola, Inc.; Sprint PCS, L.P.; Audiovox Communications Corporation; Nextel Communications of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc.; Matsushita Corporation of America, also known as Panasonic Corporation; Philips Electronic North America Corp.; Qualcomm Incorporated also known as Qualcomm, Inc; Samsung Tel

628 F.3d 296 (2010) Donald MALEN and Sharon Malen, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MTD PRODUCTS, INC. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 08-3855. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued October 27, 2009. Decided November 19, 2010. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied December 21, 2010.

791 F.Supp.2d 1228 (2011) KAHRS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant. Slip Op. 11-89. Court No. 07-00343. United States Court of International Trade. July 26, 2011. *1230 Law Offices of George R. Tuttle, A.P.C. (Michael J. Tonsing, San Francisco, CA, Carl D. Cammarata, George R. Tuttle, Stephen S. Spraitzer

ORDER PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge. The motion of defendant Snorkel International, Inc. (“Snorkel”) for summary judgment came on for hearing before the court on November 18, 2009. Plaintiffs appeared by their counsel Wesley Todd Ball; Snorkel appeared by its counsel Daniel H. Maguire; defendants Amteck of Kentucky (“Amteck”) and The Haskell Company d/b/a The Haskell Company of Florida (“Haskell”

MEMORANDUM ROBERT F. KELLY, Senior District Judge. Presently before the Court are Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff, TruePosition, Inc.’s (“TruePosition”) Complaint submitted by Defendants Qualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm”), LM Ericsson Telephone Company (Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson) (“Ericsson”), Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. (“ALU”), and European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”) (collectively,

ACCEPTED 12-15-00121-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 10/15/2015 9:45:20 PM Pam

261 S.W.3d 534 (2008) Bob RATCLIFF, Appellant, v. SPRINT MISSOURI, INC. d/b/a Sprint United Telephone, Respondent. No. WD 64840. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. April 1, 2008. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 27, 2008. Application for Transfer Denied September 30, 2008.

Justice GUZMAN delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice HECHT, Justice WAINWRIGHT, Justice MEDINA, Justice JOHNSON, Justice WILLETT, and Justice LEHRMANN joined, and in which Chief Justice JEFFERSON joined as to Parts I and II. This appeal arises from a jury’s verdict in a suit brought against the manufacturer, importer, and distributor of a motorcoach. In 1995, when the

351 F.Supp.2d 911 (2004) BENFIELD, INC., a Delaware corporation; and Benfield Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Plaintiffs, v. David MOLINE, an individual; and Mark Hagen, an individual; Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs, and John B. Collins Associates, Inc., Defendant, v. Rodman Fox, Third Party Defendant. No. CIV.04-3513(MJD/JGL). United States District Court, D. Minnesota.<

485 F.Supp.2d 121 (2007) Ronald ROGERS and Lisa A. Roles Rogers, Plaintiffs, v. WESTFALIA ASSOCIATED TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED; Portec, Inc., Defendants. Westfalia Associated Technologies, Incorporated, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Portec, Inc. and Probec, Inc., Third-Party Defendants. Probec, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Mill Technology, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.[1]