Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
77 results for '* industry:"Consumer Products"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-04-26
Practice Area: Products Liability
Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Olson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 106 EDA 2023
Asbestos defendant appealed the trial court's judgment awarding damages to appellee plaintiff after a jury trial. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding in pertinent part that the trial court erred in apportioning strict asbestos liability among remaining defendants on plaintiff's claims on a non-pro-rata basis, as was required under the Fair Share Act.
Publication Date: 2024-04-26
Practice Area: Products Liability
Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Anders
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 170102505
Product liability plaintiffs appealed the court's order denying their motion for post-trial relief. The court held that it properly limited or struck testimony by two of plaintiffs' experts where one expert relied upon a statistical analysis of a non-testifying colleague and the other provided a supplemental opinion report a mere month before trial.
Publication Date: 2024-03-29
Practice Area: Civil Rights
Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Pappert
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-3889
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's title VII and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act national origin discrimination, disparate treatment, harassment, unequal pay and retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress action and court found his disparate pay claims under his second EEOC complaint were not time-barred, he sufficiently alleged retaliation in his second complaint but his claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and conspiracy failed. Motion granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2024-03-01
Practice Area: Business Torts
Industry: Consumer Products
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Sanchez
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-3984
Plaintiff brought a shareholder derivative action against defendants for usurpation of corporate opportunity and related claims. The court found in favor of plaintiff upon trial, concluding plaintiff's son, as majority shareholder in the family business, usurped corporate opportunity and breached his fiduciary duties by unilaterally diverting a project from the family business to his own company.
Publication Date: 2024-02-16
Practice Area: Patent Litigation
Industry: Consumer Products
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Stickman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:23-cv-2000
Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction in its patent infringement action alleging infringement on a design patent and court found plaintiff did not show an ordinary observer would be deceived into mistakenly purchasing defendant's accused product instead of plaintiff's Tote Hanger and plaintiff offered no concrete evidence to support the claim of irreparable harm. Motion denied.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: George Bochetto, David P. Heim, John A. O’Connell, Robert S. Tintner
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-12-11
Practice Area: Products Liability
Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Dougherty
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 14 EAP 2022
Trial court erred in concluding corporation did not regularly conduct business in a venue based solely on the percentage of the corporation's national sales that occurred in the venue, where corporation regularly distributed products through authorized dealers located in the venue. Order of the superior court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2023-12-11
Practice Area: Real Estate
Industry: Automotive | Consumer Products | Real Estate
Court: Commonwealth Court
Judge: Judge Leavitt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 1165 C.D. 2022
Appellant appealed the trial court's order that refused to strike restrictive covenants placed upon the title to a property in conservatorship, without advance notice to the conservator or approval of the trial court supervising the conservatorship. The court reversed and remanded with instructions to grant appellant's motion to strike restrictive covenant.
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Consumer Products | Manufacturing
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Kunselman
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 226 EDA 2023
Trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff's putative class action under the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law based on plaintiff's failure to plead "any false or deceptive statements" because lack of such statement did not defeat a claim for relief under the CPL-catch-all provision but plaintiff's action based on deception by omission failed because he failed to plead and prove a duty to disclose. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2023-07-24
Practice Area: Trademarks
Industry: Consumer Products | Electronics | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Shwartz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1809
District court did not abuse its discretion by granting default judgment where defendants engaged in culpable, dilatory conduct that included losing multiple law firms due to failure to cooperate or pay and repeatedly submitting untimely responses to discovery request, causing substantial delay in the litigation that prejudiced plaintiff.
Publication Date: 2023-07-24
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Consumer Products
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Shwartz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-1940
District court correctly remanded plaintiffs' single count putative class actions alleging defendants violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act after defendant removed the cases to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act and court found the CAFA did not displace the MMWA's named-plaintiff requirements and could not serve as a basis for federal jurisdiction over MMWA class actions and defendants failed to show the amount in controversy was met for traditional diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(a). Affirmed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read