To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
In 2019, the Missouri legislature passed
Senate Bill 224 (SB 224), effectively revising Missouri s
discovery rules to align them with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (See our
2019 post for analysis of SB 224 s changes to the Missouri
Rules of Civil Procedure.) The applicability of SB 224 s
revisions remained unclear for some time, however, as the Missouri
Supreme Court hesitated to adopt them into the Missouri Rules of
Civil Procedure.
That changed earlier this month when the Missouri Supreme Court
officially amended the Rules to reflect the revisions outlined in
The Tennessee Supreme Court s opinion in
Carolyn Coffman et al v. Armstrong International, Inc., et
al., at least implicitly, recognized a bare metal
defense for the first time under Tennessee law. The Court
addressed the issue of whether, under Tennessee law, equipment
defendants had a duty to warn of the dangers associated with
the post-sale integration of asbestos-containing materials
manufactured and sold by others. The Court held that, under
the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA),
Tenn. Code Ann. §29-28-101 through 108, the equipment
defendants
did not have a duty to warn end users about the
post-sale incorporation of asbestos containing products
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
A weekly summary of the precedential patent-related opinions
issued by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the
opinions designated precedential or informative by the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board.
Cap Export, LLC, et al. v. Zinus, Inc., et
al., No. 2020-2087 (Fed. Cir. (C.D. Cal.) May 5,
2021). Opinion by Dyk, joined by Bryson and Hughes.
Zinus owns a patent directed to an assemblable mattress
support. Cap Export filed a declaratory judgment action
against Zinus, alleging that the claims are invalid and not
A key term in pricing for litigation finance (sometimes called litigation funding) is the order of priority in which litigation proceeds are paid to parties with an interest in the matter including.
An issue that keeps some litigation funders up at night concerns the possibility of a claimant filing for bankruptcy after receiving funding and before their underlying case is resolved.