Build America Buy America What is it? How to qualify.
Podcast - The FTC Takes Action Against Old Southern Brass for False "Made in the USA" Claims
Powering Through the Environmental Challenges of EV Development - Energy Law Insights
Wiley's 10 Key Trade Developments: The CHIPS Act and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
Perfecting High-Performance Battery Chemistry With John Kem, American Battery Factory — Battery + Storage Podcast
Hot Topics in international trade
Video: Making Trade Inclusive for All Americans: A Conversation with AAEI's Eugene Laney Jr., Ph.D.
(Podcast) The Briefing: Are LEGO Creations Based on Religious Texts Eligible for Copyright Protection?
The Briefing: Are LEGO Creations Based on Religious Texts Eligible for Copyright Protection?
Hot Topics in International Trade A Year in Review (Quickly)
Domesticating the Battery Supply Chain With ENTEK and KORE Power — Battery + Storage Podcast
What to Do if Your Suppliers Are in Distress - Is It Time to Find a New Supplier?
What to Do if Your Suppliers Are in Distress - Candid Conversations with Suppliers in Distress
What to Do if Your Suppliers Are in Distress - Identifying Suppliers in Distress
Podcast: The Legal Battle Over Mifepristone - Diagnosing Health Care
Podcast - Made in the USA Claims
The Labor Law Insider: Union Activity, Employment Engagement, and Changes in the Manufacturing Industry
WorldSmart: The Move to Mexico— Why Companies are Setting Sights on Mexico Post COVID
Proposition 65 – Changes That Will Impact the Cannabis Sector
Five Questions, Five Answers: Driving the I-75 with Rick Walker of GAMA Georgia
Liebig v. MTD Products, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:22-cv-04427, 2023 WL 5517557 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2023) - A product may be defective if it is sold without adequate warnings. But what if a manufacturer learns new safety...more
As we say in Virginia, that dog doesn’t hunt. A recent California federal court opinion applied Virginia law to dismiss various product liability claims against a catheter manufacturer. In Boyer v. Abbott Vascular Inc., 2023...more
Can a company be found liable for failure to warn about hazards of another company’s product used in packaging for its own product? What about when the company wasn’t warned that packaging could contain anything potentially...more
Allow me to set the stage. Our plaintiff claims he felt a nagging pain in his shoulder for months and finally went to see the local orthopedic surgeon. The surgeon apparently informed him that the tissue and cartilage in his...more
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, October 21, 2022 - In this case, the plaintiffs Arnold and Ruth Pritt allege that Arnold Pritt (“Plaintiff”) was exposed to asbestos while serving in the...more
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, October 11, 2022 In this asbestos action, the plaintiff Gloria Maryn alleged exposure to asbestos from laundering the clothes of her son, Victor Arana. Mr. Arana...more
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, July 8, 2022 - In this asbestos matter, the defendant ViacomCBS Inc. (“Westinghouse”) moved for partial summary judgment as to Decedent Callen Cortez’s...more
New Jersey Supreme Court, June 30, 2022 - In this asbestos action, decedent Willis Edenfield (“Edenfield”) commenced a failure to warn product liability action against defendant Union Carbide. The Appellate Division...more
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, June 29, 2022 - In this asbestos action, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to reargue a motion for summary judgement filed by defendant Strick Trailers, LLC...more
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, April 1, 2022 - The decedent’s widow brought this suit on behalf of the decedent alleging that the decedent’s occupational exposure to asbestos during...more
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, March 28, 2022 - In this asbestos action, plaintiff Arnold Pritt alleged that he was exposed to asbestos during his service in the U.S. Navy, and over the course...more
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled on March 28, 2022, that Delaware’s burden-shifting requirement, known as “Stigliano,” for deciding summary judgment is a “proper framework” in asbestos exposure cases, however, the particular...more
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, March 3, 2022 - Plaintiff Jerome Gehant served in the US Navy from 1967 until 1970 on the USS America as a boiler technician. The plaintiff...more
Three years and one pandemic after the U.S. Supreme Court provided guidance in March 2019 on the bare metal defense in asbestos litigation commonly known as “DeVries,” the bare metal defense is alive and well. Some predicted...more
Massachusetts federal and state courts issued several important product liability decisions in 2021. Nutter’s Product Liability practice group reviewed these cases and report on their significant holdings as follows...more
Under the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 5, Comment b (1998), the supplier of a product generally must warn about only those risks associated with the product itself, not those associated with the...more
Aligning with neighboring New York, and clearing up conflict within the Appellate Division, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled equipment manufacturers can be held strictly liable on the basis of failure to warn for...more
Last week we wrote about the status of Arkansas’ law recognizing a post-sale duty to warn, ultimately concluding that Arkansas Courts have not recognized the existence of any such duty. This week we will explain how, despite...more
Does Arkansas law recognize a post-sale duty to warn? In a nutshell, no. While Arkansas state courts have not expressly considered the issue, all legal authority indicates that the answer is indeed “no.” To support this...more
In a consolidated appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals recently looked at the proximate cause standard for asbestos cases in Davis v. John Crane. 2019 WL 5558711 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2019). In so doing, the appellate court...more
Colleagues and clients frequently pose the question whether after more than forty years the asbestos litigation juggernaut has finally neared its inevitable conclusion. The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in...more
On March 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries held that, under maritime law, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn of asbestos or other hazardous parts when its own product, although...more
In an eagerly anticipated decision by the asbestos bar, the United States Supreme Court in Air & Liquid Systems et al. v. DeVries et at., Dkt. No. 17-1104, 2019 WL 1245520 (March 19, 2019) rejected the “bare metal defense” as...more
In Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. et al. v. DeVries et al., No. 17-1104 (March 19, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held that under federal maritime law, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires the...more
On March 19, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, affirming the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in this maritime tort case involving the availability of...more