Cases

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2610 NATALIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. C. R. BARD, INC., and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District

870 F.Supp. 1085 (1994) Dan BERAHA, M.D., Plaintiff, v. C.R. BARD, INC., B & K Medical A/S and B & K Medical Systems Inc., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 1:88-CV-2823-JTC. United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. July 28, 1994. *1086 *1087 Thomas C. Harney, Mary Lillian W

ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court as a products liability action pertaining to *1313an inferior vena cava filter, known as the G2®, designed and manufactured by Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.1 On February 19, 2008, a physician im

ORDER RE BARD’S ASSERTION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE AS TO FORTY-THREE JOINT SELECTION DOCUMENTS WILLIAM G. COBB, United States Magistrate Judge. In this order, the court will undertake a review of the assertion of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine by Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Bard”) as to certain do

*600MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Daubert Motions) JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, District Judge. Pending before the court are C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”)’s Daubert motions:1 Defendant C.R. Bard, Inc.’s Motion to Limit the Opinions and Testimony of Denniz Zol-noun, M.D., M.P.H. [Docket 91]; Defendant C.R

811 S.W.2d 251 (1991) David T. BARD, Commissioner of Banking & Insurance of the State of Vermont, Appellant, v. CHARLES R. MYERS INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. & Charles R. Myers, Individually, and as President of Charles R. Myers Insurance Agency, Inc., Appellees. No. 04-89-00565-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. June 12, 1991.

258 F.Supp.2d 355 (2003) C.R. BARD, INC. and Davol, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES SURGICAL CORPORATION, Defendant. No. CIV.A.99-286-KAJ. United States District Court, D. Delaware. April 16, 2003. *357 Jack B. Blumenfeld, Maryellen Noreika, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel, Wilmington, DE, Foley, Hoag & Eliot LLP, Bost

906 F.Supp. 334 (1995) Judith E. PUMPHREY, Plaintiff, v. C.R. BARD, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 1:94-CV-138. United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia. November 30, 1995. *335 Stephen A. Wickland, Clarksburg, WV, for Plaintiffs. Gary W. Hart, William D. Esbenshade, Jackson & Kelly, Charleston, WV, for Defendant

TAYLOR, J, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision reversing the final judgment for the plaintiff. Although I agree that many of the comments-made by plaintiffs counsel were improper, I would find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling that they did not constitute a sufficient basis- for a mistrial. I would therefore affirm the trial court’s decision on this issue.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMIEN RAE JENSEN, individually No. 20-15908 and as parent and next friend of minor D.J. and as Personal Representative of D.C. No. the Wrongful Death Estate of unborn 3:15-cv-08019- child C.J.; CHAVIS JOHNSON, SPL individually and as Personal Representative of the Wrongful Death Estate of Butch Corey Johnson; OPINION MARGARET JOHNSON; FRANK JOHNSON

OPINION AND ORDER JONES, District Judge: Plaintiff Michael Morrow brought this action against defendant Bard Access Systems, Inc., in state court, alleging claims for age discrimination under ORS Chapter 659A, and common law claims for wrongful discharge. Defendant removed the action to this court based on diversity jurisdiction. The case is now before the court on defend

557 P.2d 722 (1976) BARD RANCH COMPANY, a corporation, and Eldon Johnston, an individual, Appellants (Defendants below), v. Wayne WEBER and Evelyn Weber, Appellees (Plaintiffs below). Wayne WEBER and Evelyn S. Weber, Appellants (Defendants below), v. JOHNSTON FUEL LINERS, INC., a Wyoming Corporation, and the Bard Ranch Company, a corporation, Appellees (Plaintiffs below) (two cases). JOHNSTON FUEL LINERS, INC., a Wyoming Corporati

DORRIAN, J. *1231{¶ 1} In this appeal and cross-appeal from a decree of foreclosure entered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, the parties continue their dispute over the enforceability of a leasehold mortgage. Although multiple parties participated (or declined to participate, resulting in default judgments) in proceedings in t

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0238p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ ALBERT JONES, │ Plaintiff-Appellee

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0238p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ ALBERT JONES, │ Plaintiff-Appellee

830 So.2d 1025 (2002) James L. FORTENBERRY v. C.R. BARD, INC. No. 2001-CA-2195. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. October 16, 2002. *1027 Randall A. Smith, Andrew L. Kramer, Smith & Fawer, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant. Kenneth B. Krobert, Borrello & Dubuclet, Metairie, LA, Co

WILLIAM H. STEELE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court on a host of intertwined, overlapping and often repetitive motions, to-wit: defendants' Motion for Dismissal and/or for Summary Judgment on Certain Class Claims (doc. 136), Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims of Breonna Franks (doc. 139), Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims of Tara Taylor (doc. 140), Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims of Diane

[Cite as Jones v. Sharefax Credit Union, Inc., 2022-Ohio-176.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO EILEEN JONES, as substituted : APPEAL NO. C-210260 Plaintiff-Appellant, for BRADLEY TRIAL NO. A-1802940 ENSINGER, and :

[J-64-2021] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT BAER, C.J., TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 789 CAP : Appellee : Appeal from the Judgment of : Sent

Per Curiam. In this Engle 1 progeny case, Philip Morris USA, Inc. and R.J;. Reynolds Tobacco Company (“the defendants”) appeal a final judgment in favor of Mary Cooper (“the plaintiff”) and orders denying their various post-trial motions, and the appellee, the personal representative of the plainti