Home > Legal Library > Advanced Search > Search Results









Join Matindale-Hubbell Connected



Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Washington, DC Document Search Results (4)

 

Sort by:
Sponsored Results

Adobe PDFYou Like 'To-May-Toe,' I Like 'To-Mah-Toe' -- Distinctions Without a Material Difference: Supreme Court Reverses Lower Court Rejection of ATSA Immunity
Barry S. Alexander, Jonathan M. Stern; Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
February 5, 2014, previously published on January 2014
The events of September 11 were by no means the first examples of terrorism involving aviation, but they unified the U.S., if not the world, in its effort to make air travel safer. It was in the wake of 9/11 that Congress enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), pursuant to...

 

Adobe PDFThird Circuit Holds Motion for Reconsideration Does Not Avoid Prohibition of Appellate Remand Orders
Jonathan M. Stern; Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
September 12, 2013, previously published on September 2013
Not all federal trial court decisions are subject to appellate review. Most decisions to remand a case removed from state court are not reviewable, whether as of right or by extraordinary writ. A recent Third Circuit decision holds that the denial of a motion for reconsideration of a remand order...

 

Adobe PDFClarifying Media Reports Regarding Maryland Law and Causation in Asbestos Exposure Cases
Gordon S. Woodward; Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
August 7, 2013, previously published on August 2013
It has been recently reported in Law360 that the Court of Appeals of Maryland, in Dixon v. Ford Motor Co., No. 82, 2013 Md. LEXIS 465 (Md. July 25, 2013), broke with established precedent and endorsed the “any exposure” theory of asbestos causation. See Law360, July 26, 2013, “Md....

 

Adobe PDFDoes Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.,Inc. v. Bartlett Herald the Demise of the “Failure-To-Withdraw” Theory?
Kerry C. O'Dell, Carl J. Schaerf; Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP;
Legal Alert/Article
August 1, 2013, previously published on July 2013
In most states that use a “risk utility” test to determine whether a product is “not reasonably safe” (i.e. defective) as designed, an alternative design for the product is generally considered to be a critical element of the plaintiff’s proof. See, e.g., Restatement...