Let us be clear at the outset. We were shocked and appalled by the 5-4 result in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 143 S. Ct. 2028 (2023), holding that phony “consent” to general jurisdiction does not offend constitutional Due Process when a state statutorily declares something less than “at home” status − corporate
In addition to its expected slam of the judiciary’s Federal Rules Committee largely toothless proposal for an MDL-specific rule of civil procedure, the LCJ recently did something both innovative and unexpected (at least to us) – on September 19, it proposed amending multiple federal civil rules to address privacy issues. See LCJ, “FRCP
Montana became the first state to ban TikTok this month. You no doubt have seen the press and have read the spirited discussion condemning foreign spies on the one hand and championing First Amendment rights on the other. Litigation has already commenced. But, while all that was developing, you may have overlooked that Montana
About two months ago, we marveled at the notion that challenges to facially neutral state and local government vaccine requirements were still percolating through the legal system. We probably should not have been surprised by the persistence of frivolous litigation. After all, our day job entails defending litigations that can last years longer than they
We’ve chronicled the path of the 2023 amendments to Fed. R. Evid. 702 pretty much from the beginning. As we’ve discussed, those amendments reiterate what had always been (at least since 2000) the Rule’s requirements for analyzing the admissibility of expert witness testimony. But courts had been ignoring critical elements – such as the burden of proof – that had been in comments rather than the black letter of Rule 702 itself. So, as of December 2023, Rule 702 will provide that the proponent of expert testimony must meet all of the Rule’s substantive standards for admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence, and in particular that an adequate basis for such testimony is a prerequisite to admissibility. Continue Reading Don’t Wait – The Rule 702 Amendments Can Be Used Now
We’ve written a number of posts on whether, in various jurisdictions across the United States, software and other forms of electronic/magnetic code can be considered to be “products” for purposes of product liability – usually strict liability. As befits the decentralized product liability litigation landscape in the United States, there is considerable uncertainty, but most decisions, as well as both the Second and Third Restatements of Torts, have determined that incorporeal items composed of electronic bytes are not “products.”Continue Reading Software as a Product – The European Union Goes There
An amendment to the FDCA, called the “Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT Development Act” – or VALID Act (cute) for short – has been wending its way through Congress. It appears intended to codify FDA regulatory authority over in vitro chemical tests, and is not the kind of thing we would ordinarily concern ourselves with on
Today’s somewhat unusual guest post is by Reed Smith‘s Matt Loughran. It concern’s the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to permit the government to continue enforcement of its requirement that healthcare workers (at least those in facilities that accept Medicare/Medicaid, which is most of them) be vaccinated to avoid infecting themselves and their patients
Last week the Third Circuit became the first federal appellate court to decide the question of whether federal courts have jurisdiction over COVID-related tort litigation. It concluded they did not. Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings LLC, — F.4th –, 2021 WL 4890189 (3d. Cir. Oct. 20, 2021). A decision directly at odds with
Back in May, we discussed the latest amendments proposed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to Fed. R. Evid. 702. These amendments, while not changing the substance of Rule 702’s standards for admission of expert testimony – helpfulness, factual basis, reliability – are intended to reinforce other aspects of the Rule. These