In State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson v. The Honorable Rex M. Burlison, dozens of plaintiffs sought to bring their claims against Johnson & Johnson in the City of St. Louis, Missouri even though they were not residents of the...more
Manufacturers, producers and sellers of meat substitutes, including popular plant-based products and emerging cell-cultured products, can now be subject to criminal penalties in Missouri for calling their products “meat,” or...more
On March 6, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to review the intermediate appellate court’s decision in Fox v. Johnson & Johnson, which vacated a $72 million talc verdict awarded in St. Louis City Court. ...more
3/13/2018
/ General Jurisdiction ,
Hazardous Substances ,
Johnson & Johnson ,
Judicial Review ,
Mass Tort Litigation ,
MO Supreme Court ,
Personal Care Products ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Popular ,
Specific Jurisdiction ,
State of Incorporation ,
Toxic Exposure ,
Vacated
Vacating a $72 million talc verdict against Johnson & Johnson, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, held that the case should never have been tried in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The plaintiff did not live in...more
Following recent precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Illinois Supreme Court limited the circumstances in which a non-resident corporate defendant can be subject to suit in Illinois on claims with no connection to the...more
9/28/2017
/ Corporate Liability ,
Due Process ,
Foreign Corporations ,
Forum Selection ,
General Jurisdiction ,
IL Supreme Court ,
Long Arm Statute ,
Mass Tort Litigation ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Service of Process ,
Third-Party Agents
In a decision handed down Tuesday, February 28, the Missouri Supreme Court limited circumstances in which out-of-state corporate defendants will be subject to personal jurisdiction, rejecting two novel theories of specific...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
9/29/2016
/ Appeals ,
Asbestos ,
Asbestos Litigation ,
Duty of Care ,
Hazardous Substances ,
Mesothelioma ,
Motion for Summary Judgment ,
Negligence ,
Take-Home Exposure ,
Toxic Exposure ,
Workplace Hazards
On April 20, 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court released an important decision restricting the use of so-called "Lone Pine" orders. See Antero Resources Corp. v. Strudley. Lone Pine orders require plaintiffs in toxic tort cases...more
The Small Brewer Reinvestment and Expanding Workforce Act, known as the "Small BREW Act", is bipartisan legislation introduced to Congress in early 2015. The overall goal of the Small BREW Act is to revamp the federal excise...more
Courtrooms in Illinois will begin to see a new makeup of juries soon, as effective June 1, 2015, all jury cases shall be tried by a jury of six. Previously, cases in which alleged damages exceeded $50,000 were tried by a jury...more
On December 19, 2014 the Illinois legislature amended the Illinois construction statute of repose to eliminate its protection in asbestos exposure cases (Public Act 098-1131). Beginning June 1, 2015, design professionals and...more
Maryland's highest appellate court ruled last week that a plaintiff's expert in an asbestos injury lawsuit could testify that every single exposure to asbestos substantially contributes to the development of mesothelioma,...more