You may forward this e-mail in its entirety.
Table of Contents
CONSUMER PRODUCTS CASES
- Shaw v. Marriott Int'l., Inc.
- Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc.
- In re: Grossman's Inc.
- Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. v. US
FindLaw's case summaries are copyrighted material and are not intended for republication without prior approval. You may, however, freely redistribute this e-mail in its entirety. To view the full-text of cases you must sign in
CONSUMER PRODUCTS CASES
U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 28, 2010
Shaw v. Marriott Int'l., Inc., No. 08-7142
In an action under the District of Columbia consumer protection statute to challenge the pricing practices of Marriott's Russian hotels, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the District of Columbia had an insufficient interest in the dispute for its law to apply. However, the judgment is reversed in part where plaintiffs proffered evidence that Marriott was responsible for their loss because it exercised some control over the franchised hotels at issue, including capping the rates they charge for rooms.
U.S. 1st Circuit, June 02, 2010
Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc. , No. 09-1364
In plaintiff's putative class action suit against Weyth Corporation and its subsidiary, alleging that defendants had sold a heartworm medication for dogs without disclosing safety concerns revealed in initial testing and in subsequent use, a grant of defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to sate a claim is affirmed where: 1) recovery generally is not available under the warranty of merchantability where the defect that made the product unfit caused no injury to the claimant and the threat is now gone and nothing now possessed by the claimant has been lessened in value; and 2) plaintiff has suffered no economic injuries under 93A section 4.
U.S. 3rd Circuit, June 02, 2010
In re: Grossman's Inc. , No. 09-1563
In Chapter 11 proceedings, district court's affirmance of a bankruptcy court's holding that the plaintiffs' tort claims, arising from exposure to asbestos contained in home improvement products sold by the debtor, were not "claims" under 11 U.S.C. section 101(5) is reversed where: 1) the Frenville accrual test is overruled as it imposes too narrow an interpretation of a "claim" under the Bankruptcy Code; 2) a "claim" arises when an individual is exposed pre-petition to a product or other conduct giving rise to an injury, which underlies a "right to payment" under the Bankruptcy Code, and here, plaintiffs' claims arose sometime in 1977, the date the plaintiff alleged that debtor's product exposed her to asbestos; and 3) on remand, whether a particular claim has been discharged by a plan of reorganization depends on factors applicable to the particular case and is best determined by the appropriate bankruptcy court or the district court.
U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, June 02, 2010
Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. v. US, No. 09-1493
Decision of the Court of International Trade (CIT) affirming a Customs and Border Protection classification of Honda's oil bolts under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) is affirmed as the CIT properly interpreted and applied the Schedule in concluding that articles that are "parts of general use" under Chapter 73 cannot be classified as "parts and accessories" under Chapter 87.
FindLaw includes summaries of all Supreme and Appellate Court slip opinions posted on the official Illinois Courts site. FindLaw summaries include opinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawal. Check the Illinois Courts site to determine if a specific opinion has been released before relying on that case as precedent.
We value your comments! Please take a moment to tell us what you think by sending us an e-mail.
Click here to subscribe to a FindLaw Newsletter. To unsubscribe, click here.
For more information about advertising in FindLaw Newsletters, click here.