Cases

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 §

Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge PHILLIPS wrote the opinion, in which Judge HAMILTON and Judge WILLIAMS joined. OPINION PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. This is an appeal by several related companies (collectively “Cook”) challenging a ruling *251

865 F.Supp. 37 (1994) Linda TALBOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. C.R. BARD, INC., David Prigmore and John Cvinar, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 94-10394. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. August 23, 1994. *38 *39 Jeffrey A. Newman, James Ponsetto, Jeffrey S. Beeler, Newman, Heineman & I

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

Opinion LEVY, Acting P. J. Defendant C. R. Bard, Inc. (Bard), manufactured and sold polypropylene mesh kits to treat women with pelvic organ prolapse. Bard’s product was surgically implanted in plaintiff Christine Scott. Christine Scott suffered serious complications and filed the underlying lawsuit against Bard f

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

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

BEAM, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Saint Francis Medical Center, on behalf of itself and a class of urological catheter purchasers, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to C.R. Bard in this antitrust class action. I would reverse and remand. I. BACKGROUND Bard is the leading manufacturer of Foley catheters and related products and markets its products to

(2008) BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC.; David Goldfarb, M.D., Plaintiffs, v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Counterclaimant, v. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., David Goldfarb, M.D., and C.R. Bard, Inc., Counterdefendants. No. CV 03-0597-PHX-MHM. United States District Court, D. Arizona. July 29, 2008. <

140 F.Supp.2d 346 (2001) C.R. BARD, INC., Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC, INC., Defendant. No. Civ.A. 96-589-SLR. United States District Court, D. Delaware. April 23, 2001. *347 Jack B. Blumenfeld, Maryellen Noreika, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington, Delaware, for plaintiff, of counsel Thomas B. Kenworthy, Alison Bennett

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”

MEMORANDUM OPINION SETTING FORTH FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BERYL A. HOWELL, Chief Judge Thirteen construction workers bring this action against a first-tier subcontractor and its owners, C.R. Calderon Construction, Inc. (“CRC”), Carlos R. Calderon and Ana P. Calderon (collectively, the “CRC defendants”), a second-tier subcontractor and its o

149 F.3d 249 41 Fed.R.Serv.3d 106, 47 U.S.P.Q.2d 1212,10 Fourth Cir. & D.C. Bankr. 405 In re Jon S. WILSON, Debtor.COOK GROUP, INCORPORATED; Wilson-Cook Medical,Incorporated; Cook, Inc.; Vance Products,Incorporated; Sabin Corporation,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.C.R. BARD, INCORPORATED, Intervenor-Appellee. No. 97-1908. United States Court

[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

PLAGER, Circuit Judge. This is a case of claimed infringement of a method patent for a medical treatment. Defendant-Appellant Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (ACS) was marketing the only perfusion catheter approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use in coronary angioplasty. Plaintiff-Appellee C.R. Bard, Inc. (Bard) sued ACS for alleged infringement of

642 F.3d 608 (2011) SOUTHEAST MISSOURI HOSPITAL, Plaintiff, Saint Francis Medical Center, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.R. BARD, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Tyco International, US, Inc.; Tyco Health Care Group; John Does 1-10, Defendants. Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant. No. 09-3325. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0151p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT SARAH WILSON, as Administrator of the Estate of Jack ┐ Huelsman; CHERYL HUELSMAN, │ Plaintiffs-Appellants, │

MEMORANDUM EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge. The issue before the court1 is whether, after a ease has been properly removed from *365the state court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the court may allow the permissive joinder of a party which would destroy the court’s diversity jurisdiction and remand the case t

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.

MEMORANDUM OPINION SGHMEHL, District Judge. Before the Court is the motion to dismiss of Defendants, Synthes USA Products, LLC, Synthes Spine Company, LP, Synthes Spine, Inc., Synthes USA HQ, Inc., and Synthes North America, Inc. (“Defendants”). Plaintiffs, James P. Wilson and Jacquelyn H, Wilson (“Plaintiffs”) have opposed the motion, and Defendants have filed-a reply and a “Notice of-Suppleme