Hot Topic: UPMIFA in the Context of Financial System Instability
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 384: Listen and Learn -- The Business Judgment Rule (Corporations)
Nonprofit Basics: Director Duties and Best Practices for the Typical Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 184: Listen and Learn -- The Business Judgment Rule (Corporations)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 167: Listen and Learn -- Direct and Derivative Actions (Corporations)
Amy Shepherd of Ballard Spahr on care & leadership as a legal CMO - Passle CMO Series Podcast
The Year Ahead: Litigation Hot Spots at a Glance
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 97: Listen and Learn -- The Reasonable Person Standard
Videocast: Asset management regulation in 2020 videocast series – Fiduciary investment advice: The patchwork emerges
Videocast: Asset management regulation in 2020 videocast series – The ADV season
Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals of Iowa - We previously reported on this matter involving the decedent, Charles Beverage, who was employed as an independent contractor at an aluminum plant between the 1950s and the mid-1970s....more
On January 18, 2022, the Connecticut Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s opinion which struck claims of negligence, premises liability and recklessness predicated on increased risk of future harm from asbestos exposure....more
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, February 15, 2022 - In this asbestos action, Carl Gay alleged that he developed mesothelioma after a forty-year career. From 1974 until 1976, Gay worked as a...more
Jurisdictions are divided on the issue of whether there is a duty in take-home asbestos exposure cases, and while the majority of the states have not specifically addressed the issue in the asbestos exposure context, of those...more
In April, the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana upheld the reduction of a large toxic tort verdict in James Gaddy, et al. v. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., et al., No. CV 19-12926. Plaintiff sought reconsideration...more
The Superior Court of Connecticut (Judicial District of Hartford) (“Court”) addressed in a September 30th opinion certain issues arising in an asbestos exposure case. See Julian Poce, et al., v. O&G Industries, Inc., et al.,...more
The Rise of Take-Home or Secondary Exposure Asbestos Claims - Take-home asbestos claims are asserted by or on behalf of individuals who claim an asbestos-related injury arising from exposure to asbestos fibers through...more
Recently, a divided Supreme Court of Virginia, in a 4-3 decision, recognized an employer’s liability for “take home” exposure. In Quisenberry v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 818 S.E.2d 805 (Va. 2018), the Supreme Court held that...more
In Ramsey v. Georgia Southern University Advanced Development Center, et al., C.A. No. N14C-01-287 ASB, Delaware’s Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court granting summary judgment to manufacturers of...more
In its recent decision, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant Reynolds Metal Company (“Reynolds”), holding that under the State’s laws an employer owed no duty of care to...more
A California appellate court recently upheld the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in a secondary exposure asbestos case where Plaintiffs could offer no admissible evidence that decedent’s father worked around...more
Secured creditors are not left out in the cold - In the recent case of Kevin Taylor v Van Dutch Marine Holding Ltd and others, the High Court decided that the exercise of existing rights by a secured creditor should not be...more
On December 1, 2016, the Supreme Court of California held that the duty of employers and premises owners to exercise ordinary care in their use of asbestos in their businesses includes a duty to take reasonable care to...more
Companies facing "take-home" asbestos or other toxic tort exposure claims in Arizona, or in other jurisdictions applying Arizona law, now have a new case to cite in dispositive motions. With the Sept. 20 Arizona Court of...more
In a recent published opinion, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that an employer does not owe a duty of care to the child of an employee who contracts mesothelioma from asbestos brought home on the employee’s work clothes,...more
Following recent court action, defendants up against "take-home" asbestos exposure claims may need to rethink their legal strategy. The Northern District of Illinois recently denied a Motion for Reconsideration of a...more
On August 20, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted petitions for review in two published decisions that reached different conclusions on whether a defendant owed a duty for take-home exposures. Both matters (Haver v....more