It’s not exactly Groundhog Day, but we are sticking with personal jurisdiction. Today we’re sliding two states over to Missouri. Gateway to the West. Home to Maya Angelou, Mark Twain, Dick Van Dyke, and John Goodman. Birthplace of the waffle cone and home to the largest beer producing plant in the country. Unlike Indiana, Missouri
We’ve all seen lists of so-called hellhole jurisdictions — court systems that treat corporate defendants brutally. What about a list of the places where corporations get a fair shake? Indiana would be on that list. Jurors in the Hoosier State don’t casually toss around multimillion dollar verdicts. Further, both federal and state judges in Indiana
As we write this, there is great uncertainty in the country. The intersection of state and federal law is a focus, as is the possibility that one or more of the many recent challenges to how states count votes for the presidential election will end up in the Supreme Court. The tension is palpable, in
Back in 2018, upon reading the bad general jurisdiction by consent decision, Webb-Benjamin, LLC v. International Rug Group, LLC, 192 A.3d 1133 (Pa. Super. 2018), and the worse Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc., 190 A.3d 1248 (Pa. Super. 2018), “specific” (we use that term advisedly) jurisdiction case a few months later, we commented that
Like we did with Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, when they were first nominated, we took a look at Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s record on preemption. There wasn’t much. She’s authored exactly one opinion that discussed preemption, and that involved “complete” preemption under the Labor Management Relations Act. Her opinion in Boogaard v. National Hockey
We often say, as we said last week, that this blog is not designed to do plaintiffs’ work for them. Thus, we are a heckuva lot more likely to trumpet pro-defense rulings than wrong ones. Still, it is important to know the problem areas out there, and today’s case displays one of them. It
As consumers, and connoisseurs, of personal jurisdiction precedent, we were interested in the latest turn in Thalidomide-related litigation in Pennsylvania. You can see our prior posts about the former – and extremely time barred – personal injury litigation, here and here. The personal jurisdiction angle was mentioned more recently in a 360 (that is,
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog.
Today’s case involves several multi-plaintiff complaints filed in California involving out-of-state plaintiffs who allege they suffered an injury from using out-of-state defendants’ prescription drug product that was distributed by a company headquartered in California. Afraid you’ve fallen through a portal that transported you back
As consumers, and connoisseurs, of personal jurisdiction precedent, we write today to consider the latest jurisdictional mess that has arisen, this time in talc litigation. Two courts, deciding the same jurisdictional issue on the same set of facts in the same week, have reached diametrically opposed decisions. The current contretemps concerns “Shimmer” – a minor
We have an update today on a case from Idaho on which we blogged late last year. The issue then was innovator liability, and we gave our enthusiastic stamp of approval to the court’s rejection of “product liability” where the innovator manufacturer neither made nor sold the product that allegedly harmed the plaintiff. As the