Cases

ORDER David G. Campbell, United States District Judge Plaintiffs Maria E. Barraza and others bring this case against Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. (collectively, “Bard”) seeking medical monitoring. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and classes of individuals who have been implanted with a Bard inferior vena cava filter, have not had that filter removed, and have not filed

Appellate Case: 24-4039 Document: 90-1 Date Filed: 12/31/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH December 31, 2025

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc EVE SHERRER, ) Opinion issued October 13, 2020 ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SC97465 ) BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION

DECISION Before the Court in this products liability action is Plaintiffs' Motion for the Application of Rhode Island Law. The Defendants Davol, Inc. ("Davol") and C.R. Bard, Inc. ("Bard") (Collectively "Defendants") object to this motion. This Court afforded the parties an opportunity to be heard on February 3, 2011. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14.

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN D. BATES, District Judge. Plaintiff Denise Clark brings this action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), alleging that defendants improperly denied her a significant portion of her retirement benefits. Defendants are the law firm Feder, Semo & Bard (“Feder Semo”

120 F.Supp.2d 1145 (2000) C.R. BARD, INC., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant, v. M3 SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Counterclaimant. No. 93 C 4788. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June 27, 2000. *1146 Terry M. Grimm, Winston & Strawn, Chicago, IL, Desiree M. Stahl, Morgan & Finnegan, New York, NY, Mark L.

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. On October 15, 2003, plaintiff Scott M. Epstein (“Epstein”) filed a ten-count complaint against Defendant C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) 1 in the Suffolk County Superior Court, requesting damages arising from Bard’s alleged breach of contract and infringement of Epstein’s intellectual property rights.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge GAJARSA. Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge PROST. GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. Milton D. Goldenberg (“Goldenberg”) and Immunomedics, Inc. (collectively, “Im-munomedics”), appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment of nonin-fringement of United States Patent No. 4,460,559 (the “'559 patent”) in favor of Cytogen, Inc.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 142 [¶ 1] Appellants, R.C.R., Inc., and Jon R. Gray (hereafter Gray), assert that the district court erred: (1) In finding that the Appellees, Robert and Annabelle Deline (Delines), were not violating the terms of a 1979 easement they had across Gray's lands; (2) in concluding that an Affidavit Affecting Title f

LYNCH, Circuit Judge. This is an unusually complex denial of benefits case that arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461. The defendant is a multi-employer pension plan (“BSA-ILA” or “the Plan”), and at issue is a decision by its Board of Trustees (“the Board”) to deny disability benefits to a former employee, Paul Bard. Th

983 P.2d 933 (1999) 1999 MT 177 MISSOULA YWCA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Allen BARD, Defendant and Respondent. No. 98-256. Supreme Court of Montana. Heard April 12, 1999. Submitted April 20, 1999. Decided July 27, 1999. Jon E. Ellingson (argued), Missoula, Montana, for Appellant. R.J. "Jim" Sewell, J

[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

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2286 ___________________________ George Par; IVYR, PLLC, doing business as Par Retina Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Wolfe Clinic, P.C.; Jared S. Nielsen; Kyle J. Alliman; David D. Saggau

371 F.Supp.2d 965 (2005) BLACK & DECKER INC. and Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT BOSCH TOOL CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 04 C 7955. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June 10, 2005. *966 Raymond P. Niro, Christopher J. Lee, David Joseph Mahalek, Dean D. Niro, Paul Christopher G

389 F.Supp.2d 1010 (2005) BLACK & DECKER INC. and Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT BOSCH TOOL CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 04 C 7955. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. September 28, 2005. *1011 *1012 *1013

557 So.2d 739 (1990) Shirley Louise Wallis WATSON and Wilma Joy Watson Bruce, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. C.R. BARD, INC. and Aetna Life and Casualty Co., et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 21276-CA. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit. February 28, 1990. Rehearing Denied March 29, 1990. Writ Denied May 25, 1990.

GROSS, J. In this Engle1 progeny case, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff below, Pamela Ciccone, as personal representative of the Estate of George N. Ciccone. The final judgment upheld the jury’s award of $3,195,222.35 in compensatory damages, reduced by the deceased’s 70% comparative fault, and $50,000 in punitive damages for gross neg

719 F.Supp. 1228 (1989) BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. C.R. BARD, INC., Defendant. Civ. A. No. 86-1684. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. July 28, 1989. As Amended September 21, 1989. *1229 *1230 Elliot M. Olstein, John N. Bain, Michael S. Miller, Carel

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 16, 2005 Session LUCY R. CHAPMAN v. H & R BLOCK MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County No. 02-0186 Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor No. E2005-00082-COA-R3-CV - FILED NOVEMBER 28, 2005 This appeal presents the issue of the enfor

*1042POLSTON, J., dissenting. The majority creates a totally different legal definition of “manifestation” to then rulé that plaintiffs whose cause of action had not yet accrued at the time of Engle3 class certification are part of the class. This newly created “manifestation” cannot be found in