Cases

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge This case involves a consolidated trial of four products liability cases that are each part of a multidistrict litigation encompassing over twenty-five thousand total cases. The jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs, awarding over $4 million to each. Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation asserts that the consolidation itself rendered the trial unfair, dis

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (.Motion in Limine No. 9) JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, District Judge. Pending before the court is Boston Scientific Corporation’s (“BSC”) Motion in Limine to Preclude Any Evidence or Argument That Boston Scientific Owed 'or Breached a Duty to Warn Plaintiffs Directly (“Motion in Limine No. 9”). (See BSC’s Initial Mots, in Limine [Docket 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Daubert Motions) JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, District Judge. The following motions have been brought by the defendant, Boston Scientific Corporation (“BSC”): (1) Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Experts’ Opinion that Polypropylene Mid-Urethral Slings Are Defective [Docket 227]; (2) Defendant’s Motion to Exclude the Opinions and Testimony of Michael Th

7 F.2d 715 (1925) FOX FILM CORPORATION v. TRUMBULL, Governor of Connecticut, et al. AMERICAN FEATURE FILM CO., Inc., v. SAME. District Court, D. Connecticut. August 17, 1925. *716 Benedict M. Holden, of Hartford, Conn., and Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, of New York City (George W. Wickersham and Edwin P. Grosvenor, both of New Yo

Easterly, Associate Judge, concurring: I join the opinion of the court adopting Federal Rule of Evidence 702 as the rule for the admission of expert testimony in criminal and civil cases. With this decision, trial courts will be called upon to scrutinize an array of forensic expert testimony under new, more scientifically demanding standards; As the opinion of the court states, “[tjhere is no ‘grandfatherin

DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Denise Arruda brings this action against Zurich American Insurance Company *177("Zurich") seeking accidental death benefits pursuant to an employee welfare benefits plan stemming from the death of her husband, Joseph Arruda, in a car accident. Zurich has denied benefits. The parties have separat

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER YOUNG, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This is a putative class action filed by Michael Courtney (“Courtney”) and Wash-*98tenaw County Employees Retirement System (“Washtenaw”) (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) against Avid Technology, Inc. (“Avid,” or the “Company”), certain of its officers (the “I

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1247 DENISE ARRUDA, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant, NSTAR ELECTRIC AND GAS BASIC ACCIDENT INSURANCE PLAN, Defendant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

OPINION OF THE COURT Sgroi, J. “[Dogs] are such agreeable friends — they ask no questions, they pass no criticisms” (George Eliot, Scenes of Clerical Life [1857]), but do they belong in the courtroom? On this appeal, we examine the question of whether the courts of this state should permit the presence of a therapeutic “comfort dog” in a trial setting when the court determines that the animal may provide

OPINION OF THE COURT Sgroi, J. “[Dogs] are such agreeable friends — they ask no questions, they pass no criticisms” (George Eliot, Scenes of Clerical Life [1857]), but do they belong in the courtroom? On this appeal, we examine the question of whether the courts of this state should permit the presence of a therapeutic “comfort dog” in a trial setting when the court determines that the animal may provide

McLEESE, Associate Judge: Baseball umpire Edwin Hickox was injured while wearing a mask manufactured by Wilson Sporting Goods Company. Mr. Hickox and his wife brought products-liability claims against Wilson. A jury found for the Hickoxes on all claims. Wilson appeals, arguing that the Hickoxes presented expert testimony that lacked an adequate foundation; that Wilson was entitled to a jury instruction on assumption of ris

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 35 U.S.C. § 101 INELIGIBILITY MARIANA R. PFAELZER, District Judge. I. Introduction Plaintiff California Institute of Technology (“Caltech”) has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,116,710 (“the '710 patent”), 7,421,-032 (“the '032 patent”), 7,916,781 (“the '781 patent”), and 8,284,833 (“the '833 patent,”) against Defendants Hughes Commun

407 F.Supp.2d 351 (2006) UNITED STATES of America v. Amando MONTEIRO, Valdir Fernandes, Angelo Brandao, Brima Wurie, Luis Rodrigues, Manuel Lopes, Defendants. No. CRIM. 03-10329-PBS. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 6, 2006. *352 *353 *354</

PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge Plaintiff James M. Maloney, a pro se attorney and amateur martial artist, brings this action against Defendant Madeline Singas, in her capacity as the Nassau County District Attorney, seeking a declaration that New York State's 1974 ban on the possession of chuka sticks,1 also known as nunchaku, is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Based on

MEMORANDUM KEVIN H. SHARP, District Judge. Pending before the Court are multiple motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee (“Metro”) and Officer Michael Gallagher in this civil rights suit arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the laws of the state of Tennessee. Metro filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (Dock

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DYLANN STORM ROOF, Defendant – Appellant. ------------------------------ AUTISTIC SELF ADVOCACY NETWORK; AUTISTIC WOMEN

OPINION AND ORDER GERARD E. LYNCH, District Judge. On September 13, 2007, this Court dismissed the securities fraud complaint in the putative class action, In re Refco Capital Markets, Ltd. Brokerage Customer Securities Litigation, No. 06 Civ. 643, 2007 WL 2694469, at *12-13 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2007) (hereinafter “RCM I”), for failure to allege deceptive conduct, but granted Lead Plainti

81 F.Supp.2d 55 (2000) Thomas G. CORCORAN, Jr., Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant. No. Civ.A. 98-2191-LFO. United States District Court, District of Columbia. January 5, 2000. *56 Henry M. Lloyd, William C. Casano, Boykin & Casano, Washington, DC, Thomas G. Corcoran, Jr., Kathleen S. Rice, Berliner, Corcoran

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0215p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ MEMPHIS CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; │ PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF TENNE

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0215p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ MEMPHIS CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; │ PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF TENNE