Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability

References

Case No. 90-3973

Regular Panel Decision

Findley v. Blinken (In Re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation)

This class action sought approval of a settlement to restructure the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, created to compensate asbestos victims. The Trust was facing insolvency due to underestimated claims, high litigation costs, and inefficient payment methods. The court-approved settlement aims to remove the Trust from the tort system, reduce transaction costs, and ensure a more equitable distribution of limited funds to both present and future claimants. It establishes a 'Trust Distribution Process' with payment priorities for more seriously injured claimants (Level One) and a cap on initial payments to safeguard funds for future claimants and those with less severe injuries (Level Two). The court certified a mandatory, non-opt-out class, approving the settlement as a necessary and fair compromise to address the Trust's financial crisis and the broader national asbestos litigation challenge.

Asbestos LitigationMass TortsClass ActionBankruptcy ReorganizationLimited FundTrust FundClaim ResolutionEquitable DistributionFuture ClaimantsSettlement Approval

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Colgate-Palmolive Co. Erisa Litigation

This ERISA class action case, initiated in 2007, involved allegations against Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees’ Retirement Income Plan for miscalculating pension benefits. After three years of litigation and another three years of settlement negotiations, a $45.9 million class action settlement was reached for 8,612 participants. The Court granted preliminary approval in December 2013 and final approval after a fairness hearing in April 2014. This order addresses the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, requesting 25% of the fund ($11,475,000) for fees, $591,011.17 for costs, and $5,000 incentive awards for each of the six named plaintiffs. The Court, applying the percentage of the fund method and using empirical studies for comparison, found the requested 25% fee reasonable and granted the motion for fees, costs, and incentive awards.

Class ActionSettlement ApprovalAttorneys' FeesCommon Fund DoctrineLodestar MethodPercentage of Fund MethodERISA LitigationPension BenefitsStatute of LimitationsActuarial Experts

References

Case No. 02 Civ. 910

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 10, 2006

In Re Alstom SA Securities Litigation

The lead plaintiffs, a group of retirement systems and a union, filed a class action lawsuit alleging securities fraud against Alstom S.A., its subsidiaries Alstom Transportation Inc. (ATI), Alstom USA, and executives Stephan Rambaud-Measson and Joseph Janovec. The claims involve violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, stemming from ATI's alleged understatement of costs on railcar contracts, particularly for New Jersey Transit. These accounting improprieties purportedly led to an overstatement of Alstom's income in public financial reports. The District Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged scienter against Alstom, active participation and scienter against Rambaud-Measson and Janovec, and a plausible veil-piercing theory for Alstom USA's liability. The decision allows the case to proceed, underscoring that the plaintiffs' detailed new allegations, including executive knowledge of cost overruns, met the heightened pleading standards for fraud and control liability.

Securities fraudClass actionAlstomFinancial misstatementsExchange ActSection 10(b) violationSection 20(a) violationMotion to dismissScienterCorporate veil-piercing

References

Case No. 00 Civ. 1898, M21-88, MDL 1358

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation

This opinion and order denies Orange County Water District's (OCWD) motion to remand its action to state court. OCWD, a plaintiff in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving water contamination by MTBE, argued that its case was improperly removed from state court under bankruptcy statutes. The District Court, presided over by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, found that OCWD's motion to remand was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because it was filed more than 30 days after the notice of removal. The court emphasized that improper removal is a procedural defect, waivable if not challenged within 30 days, while a lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. As the court retained core bankruptcy jurisdiction, the motion was denied, highlighting Congress's intent to prevent late-stage forum shopping and ensure efficient litigation in MDLs.

Multidistrict LitigationMTBE ContaminationWater PollutionRemoval JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionBankruptcy LawRemand MotionProcedural DefectWaiver28 U.S.C. 1447(c)

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 23, 2018

Kindle v. Dejana

Plaintiffs, participants in the Atrium Management Services, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), initiated a class action, alleging that defendants breached fiduciary duties and violated ERISA in connection with the valuation and sale of ESOP assets. After extensive litigation, including cross-motions for summary judgment and a bench trial, the parties agreed to a Special Master's neutral valuation, which led to a substantial recovery of over $1.4 million for the class. Subsequently, Plaintiff Michael Brewley moved for attorneys' fees and costs. The court partially granted and partially denied this motion, ultimately awarding over $955,000 in attorneys' fees, nearly $103,000 in costs, and a $10,000 service award to the named plaintiff.

ERISAEmployee Stock Ownership PlanFiduciary DutyClass ActionAttorneys FeesCostsClass Representative AwardLodestar MethodFee Shifting StatuteStipulated Agreement

References

Case No. ADJ2340102 (LAO 0751270) ADJ4406096 (LAO 0784412)

Regular

Apr 27, 2017

JOSE MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ADVENTIST HEALTH

This case involves an award of additional attorney's fees for applicant's counsel in the California Court of Appeal. The court remanded the matter for supplemental fees after the defendant's unsuccessful Petition for Writ of Review. While applicant's attorney sought $11,480.00 in fees, the Board found this excessive and awarded $8,000.00 based on a review of the appellate work and the contentious history of the litigation. The Board also awarded the requested costs of $67.58, totaling $8,067.58 in additional appellate attorney's fees and costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesItemization of Attorney's FeesExcessive Fee RequestReasonable Fee DeterminationCase-by-Case Basis

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Blech Securities Litigation

This opinion addresses a motion for class certification in consolidated actions alleging securities and common law fraud. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class against various defendants, including Bear Stearns & Co. and Baird Patrick & Co., for a scheme to manipulate the prices of 'Blech Securities' between October 1991 and September 1994. The court reviewed the class action requirements under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Finding that these requirements were satisfied, the court granted the motion for class certification, with the creation of three subclasses to manage the litigation efficiently.

Securities FraudClass ActionMarket ManipulationBroker-DealerInvestment BankingBiotechnology StocksRule 23Federal Civil ProcedureFraud and DeceitConsolidated Actions

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Simon II Litigation

Senior District Judge Weinstein issued an order concerning the consolidation and scheduling of various class action lawsuits within the broader tobacco litigation. The court emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of claims and suggested advancing test cases to assess class certification viability. The order outlines specific directives for asbestos-related cases, Blue Cross cases, union health fund actions, and individual plaintiff cases, often awaiting appellate decisions or setting new pretrial hearings and class certification motions for dates in late 2001 and early 2002. This order reflects the court's tentative views on managing these complex and expensive cases.

Tobacco LitigationClass ActionConsolidationTrial ScheduleCase ManagementPretrial HearingFederal CourtsCivil ProcedureAsbestos LitigationMedical Litigation

References

Showing 1-10 of 2,196 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability

References

Case No. 90-3973

Regular Panel Decision

Findley v. Blinken (In Re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation)

Asbestos LitigationMass TortsClass ActionBankruptcy ReorganizationLimited FundTrust FundClaim ResolutionEquitable DistributionFuture ClaimantsSettlement Approval

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Colgate-Palmolive Co. Erisa Litigation

Class ActionSettlement ApprovalAttorneys' FeesCommon Fund DoctrineLodestar MethodPercentage of Fund MethodERISA LitigationPension BenefitsStatute of LimitationsActuarial Experts

References

Case No. 02 Civ. 910

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 10, 2006

In Re Alstom SA Securities Litigation

Securities fraudClass actionAlstomFinancial misstatementsExchange ActSection 10(b) violationSection 20(a) violationMotion to dismissScienterCorporate veil-piercing

References

Case No. 00 Civ. 1898, M21-88, MDL 1358

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation

Multidistrict LitigationMTBE ContaminationWater PollutionRemoval JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionBankruptcy LawRemand MotionProcedural DefectWaiver28 U.S.C. 1447(c)

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 23, 2018

Kindle v. Dejana

ERISAEmployee Stock Ownership PlanFiduciary DutyClass ActionAttorneys FeesCostsClass Representative AwardLodestar MethodFee Shifting StatuteStipulated Agreement

References

Case No. ADJ2340102 (LAO 0751270) ADJ4406096 (LAO 0784412)

Regular

Apr 27, 2017

JOSE MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ADVENTIST HEALTH

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re Blech Securities Litigation

Securities FraudClass ActionMarket ManipulationBroker-DealerInvestment BankingBiotechnology StocksRule 23Federal Civil ProcedureFraud and DeceitConsolidated Actions

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In Re Simon II Litigation

Tobacco LitigationClass ActionConsolidationTrial ScheduleCase ManagementPretrial HearingFederal CourtsCivil ProcedureAsbestos LitigationMedical Litigation

References

Showing 1-10 of 2,196 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.