News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[09/08] Tamraz v. Lincoln Elec. Co.
In plaintiffs' suit against several manufacturers of welding supplies, claiming that the fumes from their products had caused his parkinsonism and that labels on the products had failed to warn of the danger, jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiffs is reversed as the district court exceeded its discretion in admitting an expert's opinion that the manufacturers' products triggered "manganese-induced parkinsonism" in plaintiff, because the "knowledge" requirement of Rule 702 requires more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.

[09/08] Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Univ. Crop Protection Alliance, LLC
In a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that a pollution exclusion in defendant's insurance policy relieved plaintiff of any obligation to defend or indemnify defendant, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) in the insurance policy coverage context, a declaratory judgment action is ripe irrespective of whether the underlying litigation is ongoing or resolved; and 2) the underlying complaint made clear the relofted particulates at issue were toxic, and therefore, would qualify as "pollutants" under the policy.

[09/08] Wilcox v. Homestake Mining Co.
In an action brought under the Price-Anderson Act, 42 U.S.C. section 2210, claiming that plaintiffs suffered cancer due to exposure to radiation from defendants' uranium mill, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no basis in New Mexico law for extending the exception to the but-for causation requirement beyond the limited bounds the court described in interpreting the Restatement view under Colorado law in June; and 2) to the extent Tafoya altered the but-for test in situations where a defendant's actions aggravated but did not cause an injury, it was not applicable in this case.

[09/08] Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.
In an action alleging that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), working in concert with other government agencies and officials of foreign governments, operated an extraordinary rendition program to gather intelligence by apprehending foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorist activities and transferring them in secret to foreign countries for detention and interrogation by U.S. or foreign officials, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the Reynolds state secret privilege may be asserted at any time, even at the pleading stage; and 2) at least some of the matters the government sought to protect from disclosure in the litigation were valid state secrets, which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.

Read More