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 “Clark v. Davol, Inc.”
Bowersock v. Davol, Inc.public domain
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT larry j. McKinney, judge This case is before the Court on Defendants’, Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc. (collectively, “Bard”), Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.30) on Plaintiffs’j Bobby Don Bowersock, Charlotte Robinson, and Mark Bowersock (collectively “Plaintiffs’ ”), Complaint. Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs allege that a hernia patch manufactured by Bard and impl
Veracode, Inc. v. Appthority, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. BACKGROUND.. .32 A. Factual Background... 32 B. Procedural History.. .33 1. Initial Complaint and Pre-Trial Proceedings.. .33 2. Jury Verdict... 34 3. Post-Trial Motions... 34 C. Applicable Standards of Review.. .35
Clark v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancepublic domain
HENRY, Circuit Judge. On July 18, 1996, an automobile insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) struck Ricky Eugene Clark, a pedestrian. Mr. Clark filed a class-action suit against State Farm to collect extended personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits under the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act (“CAARA”). See Colo.Rev.S
Nowell v. Medtronic Inc.public domain
James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed March 23, 2018 (Doc. 27)("MTD"). The Court held a hearing on August 10, 2018. The primary issues are: (i) whether the applicable statutes of limitations bar Plaintiff Janice Nowell's claims against Defendants Medtronic Inc., Covidien PLC, Covidien LP, and Medtronic PLC for negligence, strict
Maeda v. Pinnacle Foods Inc.public domain
DISCUSSION Defendant seeks dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice on the following grounds: (1) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the claims asserted by Plaintiff Iliana Sanchez; (2) Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims fail because Plaintiffs have not alleged an actionable misrepresentation; (3) Plaintiffs' common law claims fail as a matter of law; and (4) Plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective injunctive reli
Rosenberg v. C.R. Bard, Inc.public domain
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION In this products liability case, an individual asserts both negligence and strict liability claims against a prescription medical device manufacturer. In doing so, the Court is presented with an important question of state law that has often been raised but has effectively evaded review by
Andren v. Alere, Inc.public domain
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. (Dkt. No. 11.) An opposition and reply were filed. (Dkt. Nos. 16, 17.) Based on the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Background On M
Traxler v. PPG Industries, Inc.public domain
OPINION AND ORDER Dan Aaron Polster, United States District Judge Presently before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants PPG Industries, Inc., PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., and PPG Architectural Coatings, LLC (collectively, “Defendants” or “PPG”). (Doc #: 26 (“Motion”)). The Court notes that the Motion does not seek dismissal of all claims. Specifically, Defendants do not seek dismissal of
In re Conagra Foods, Inc.public domain
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge. On June 28, 2011, Robert Briseno filed a complaint against ConAgra;1 between Oc*938tober and December 2011, the court consolidated several cases filed against ConA-gra under the caption above
In re Conagra Foods, Inc.public domain
*546ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE MARGARET M. MORROW, District Judge. On June 28, 2011, Robert Briseno filed a complaint against ConAgra.1 Between October and December 2011, the court consolidated several eases filed against Co
Jones v. Ram Medical, Inc.public domain
ORDER TERRY L. WOOTEN, District Judge. This matter is now before the Court for consideration of two motions to dismiss filed by Defendant Ram Medical, Inc., (“Ram Medical”), and two motions to dismiss filed by Defendant Medline Industries, Inc., (“Medline”). (Docs. # 17, 23, 31, and 35). On January 6, 2011, Ram Medical filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 17). On January 14, 2011, Medline filed a motion to dis
TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp.public domain
646 F.3d 869 (2011) TIVO INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ECHOSTAR CORPORATION, EchoStar DBS Corporation, EchoStar Technologies Corporation, EchoSphere Limited Liability Company, EchoStar Satellite LLC, and Dish Network Corporation, Defendants-Appellants. No. 2009-1374. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. April 20, 2011. *873</
Horbet v. New Penn, Inc.public domain
DECISION Appellants Raymond Horbet, 1 James D'Abrosca, and Joseph Bessett2 ("Appellants") brought this appeal from a decision of the Department of Labor and Training ("DLT"). In that decision, the Hearing Officer denied the Appellants' claims and found that they were not entitled to recover vacation pay from their former employer, New P
Akins v. C.R. Bard, Inc.public domain
Before the Court in these products liability actions are consolidated Motions to Dismiss (Motions) filed by the Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. (Bard), and Davol, Inc. (Davol) *Page 2 (collectively, the Defendants), against all of the above-named Plaintiffs.1 The Motions are based upon the doctrine of forum nonconveniens. The Plaintiffs have filed objections. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 §
Principi v. Survivair, Inc.public domain
Order GLAZEBROOK, United States Magistrate Judge. This cause came on for hearing on August 17, 2005, on the pending motion for summary judgment: MOTION: DEFENDANT SURVIVAIR, A DIVISION OF BACOU-DALLOZ USA SAFETY, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 52) FILED: June 17, 2005 THEREON it is ORDER
Opinion for the court by Circuit Judge GAJARSA. Opinion concurring in part, and dissenting in part by Circuit Judge PAULINE NEWMAN. GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant, Cable & Wireless Internet Services, Inc. (“C & W”), appeals the orders of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts: (1) denying C & W’s motion for judgment as a matte
378 F.Supp.2d 780 (2005) AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 01-CV-71700-DT. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. July 21, 2005. *781 *782 *783 Charles W. Shifle
168 F.Supp.2d 181 (2001) LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Plaintiff, v. NEWBRIDGE NETWORKS CORP. and Newbridge Networks, Inc. Defendants. No. 97-347-JJF. United States District Court, D. Delaware. September 21, 2001. *182 *183 *184 *1
Muir v. C.R. Bard, Inc.public domain
336 S.C. 266 (1999) 519 S.E.2d 583 Dale MUIR, Employee/Claimant, Respondent, v. C.R. BARD, INC., Self-Insured Employer, Appellant. No. 3012. Court of Appeals of South Carolina. Heard May 11, 1999. Decided June 21, 1999. Rehearing Denied August 28, 1999. *274 Grady L. Beard
ORDER CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS AND APPROVING CONSENT DECREE GOLD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court pursuant to the Court’s June 7, 2001 Order Concerning Settlement Fairness Hearing, and the parties’ June 2, 2001 submission of a Joint Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Proposed Consent Decree; Conditionally Certifying the Settlement Class; Directing Notice to the Cla