class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs
   
   
 
   

FORUM

« Pennsylvania legislature | Jumping into contingent-fee work »

March 14, 2005


On the Supreme Court's docket

Two statutory interpretation cases argued at the high court in January, and covered by Legal Times' Tony Mauro at the time, are likely to have a major impact on the business litigation landscape: one of them concerns the extent to which federal regulation of pesticide labeling pre-empts claims of inadequate labeling brought under state product liability law, and the other will determine whether securities plaintiffs need to prove that company misstatements actually caused their losses before they can collect on them.

Posted by Walter Olson at 12:04 AM | TrackBack (0)



categories:
Class Actions
Products Liability









 

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.