CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

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

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
8
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
91
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
25
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
52
Case No. 02 Civ. 3288(DLC), 03 Civ. 0167, 03 Civ. 0168, 03 Civ. 0169, 03 Civ. 0170, 03 Civ. 0171, 03 Civ. 0337, 03 Civ. 0890, 03 Civ. 0891, 03 Civ. 0892, 03 Civ. 1283, 03 Civ. 1284, 03 Civ. 2839, 03 Civ. 3859, 03 Civ. 3860, 03 Civ. 4499, 03 Civ. 4500, 03 Civ. 6226, 03 Civ. 6227, 03 Civ. 6592, 03 Civ. 7297, 03 Civ. 7806, 03 Civ. 8269, 03 Civ. 8270, 03 Civ. 8271, 03 Civ. 8923, 03 Civ. 8924, 03 Civ. 9168, 03 Civ. 9400, 03 Civ. 9401, 03 Civ. 9402, 03 Civ. 9823, 03 Civ. 9824
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2004

In Re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation

This case addresses motions for reconsideration and dismissal in a multi-district litigation stemming from the WorldCom, Inc. financial collapse. The court affirmed that Section 13 of the Securities Act, not the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's Section 804, dictates the statute of limitations for Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims, as these actions were deliberately pleaded as strict liability/negligence rather than fraud. It also held that the 'American Pipe' tolling doctrine does not apply to individual actions filed independently before class certification, leading to many time-barred claims. Furthermore, the court upheld the dismissal of a Section 12(a)(2) claim regarding a December 2000 private placement, affirming that such placements fall outside the scope of Section 12(a)(2). Requests for leave to amend complaints were largely denied due to lack of diligence and bad faith in strategic pleading.

Securities LitigationClass ActionStatute of LimitationsSarbanes-Oxley ActSecurities Act of 1933American Pipe Tolling DoctrineRule 15(c) Relation-BackPrivate PlacementMotion to DismissMotion for Reconsideration
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation

This Memorandum & Order by Judge Korman addresses objections to the allocation of settlement funds in the In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation class action. The Pink Triangle Coalition and Disability Rights Advocates proposed separate cy pres distributions for homosexual and disabled Nazi victims, respectively, aiming to fund education, research, and advocacy programs. They argued these groups were historically overlooked and difficult to identify for individual compensation. Judge Korman rejected both proposals, reaffirming the current allocation strategy of distributing funds directly to the neediest individual Holocaust survivors. The judge reasoned that the overwhelming and life-sustaining needs of survivors, particularly in areas like the Former Soviet Union, supersede the proposed cy pres distributions. He emphasized that the primary goal is restitution to individual victims, that there are no distinct sub-classes, and that disabled survivors are already major recipients of aid.

HolocaustClass Action SettlementFund AllocationCy Pres DoctrineVictim CompensationHomosexual VictimsDisabled VictimsNazi PersecutionHumanitarian AidSurvivor Support
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re New York City Asbestos Litigation

This case addresses the interpretation of CPLR 1601 regarding joint and several liability, specifically whether corporations that have filed for bankruptcy are considered beyond a court's "jurisdiction." The court, presided over by Edward H. Lehner, J., was tasked with molding judgments in five consolidated asbestos litigation actions. The central issue was whether the shares of fault attributed to bankrupt entities should be excluded from CPLR 1601 calculations for non-economic loss, thereby potentially increasing the liability of the non-settling defendant, Rapid-American Corporation. The court ruled that the term "jurisdiction" in CPLR 1601 should be enlarged to mean "effective jurisdiction," thus allowing for the exclusion of bankrupt entities from fault apportionment if effective jurisdiction cannot be obtained. The decision on the final molding of judgments was held in abeyance, pending a hearing to determine which corporations were subject to a bankruptcy statutory stay and verification of settlement amounts for offsets under General Obligations Law § 15-108.

Asbestos litigationCPLR 1601Joint and several liabilityBankruptcy stayEffective jurisdictionWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement offsetsJudgment moldingPersonal injuryTortfeasors
References
11
Case No. 02 Civ. 5571(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses defendants' motion for partial summary judgment concerning plaintiffs' standing in a securities litigation against Vivendi Universal S.A., Jean-Marie Messier, and Guillaume Hannezo. The central issue is whether various investment management companies, suing on behalf of investment funds and their investors, possess constitutional standing under the "Huff exception." The court examines the legal structures of numerous foreign investment vehicles from Germany, Luxembourg, France, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, and Denmark. It concludes that most management companies for German, Luxembourgian FCPs, French FCPs, Belgian FCPs, Swedish, and Austrian funds satisfy the Huff exception, denying summary judgment against them. However, the court grants summary judgment against Danish investment companies, finding their relationship with the Associations does not meet the exception's requirements. The opinion also rules that post-filing assignments or substitutions under Rule 17 FRCP can cure standing defects, allowing plaintiffs time to amend their complaints.

Securities LitigationStandingSummary JudgmentInvestment FundsManagement CompaniesArticle III StandingHuff ExceptionRule 17 FRCPClass ActionVivendi Universal
References
18
Case No. MDL No. 2389
Regular Panel Decision

In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities & Derivative Litigation

This opinion and order addresses the defendants' motion to amend and certify a prior December 12, 2013 opinion for interlocutory appeal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The prior opinion had denied the defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint concerning federal securities claims related to Facebook's 2012 IPO. The current court denies the defendants' motion, finding that they failed to satisfy the high threshold required for § 1292(b) certification. Specifically, the court determined that the defendants did not demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" or that an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation's termination. The court also found that the questions posed did not involve "controlling questions of law" in a pure sense, as they were fact-specific applications of law. While acknowledging a substantial ground for difference of opinion regarding the misrepresentation issue, the court concluded it was insufficient to warrant interlocutory appeal given the other factors.

Interlocutory AppealSecurities LitigationMotion to DismissMDL PanelFacebook IPOItem 303 Regulation S-KMaterial MisrepresentationSecond Circuit PrecedentSouthern District of New YorkClass Action
References
0
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06557 [143 AD3d 483]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation

This case, Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, involves an appeal by Crane Co. against a jury verdict awarding damages to Laraine Sweberg, as executrix of Ivan Sweberg, for mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the jury's finding that Crane Co. was liable for failing to warn about asbestos hazards, as it promoted asbestos-containing materials alongside its products despite knowing the dangers since the 1930s. The court found sufficient evidence to support proximate causation and the submission of recklessness to the jury. However, the court modified the judgment regarding the award for future pain and suffering, conditionally vacating it and ordering a new trial unless the plaintiff stipulates to a reduced award of $4.5 million.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaFailure to WarnProximate CauseJury VerdictDamages RemittiturFuture Pain and SufferingAppellate ReviewProduct LiabilityAsbestos Exposure
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 782 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational