Tag: France

  • Case of the Day: In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (Hamilton v. American President Lines)

    The case of the day is Hamilton v. American President Lines Ltd. (E.D. Pa. 2012), one of the thousands of cases that are part of the multi-district litigation on asbestos product liability. As with many MDLs, it’s difficult to decipher the docket. Neil Hamilton is one of the plaintiffs asserting claims under the Jones Act……

  • Case of the Day : French Cour de cassation, May 12th 2012 (N°11-15.508)

    This is the first guest-post by Fanny Cornette, a member of Letters Blogatory’s IJA Brigade. Fanny holds positions at the Université de Rouen and the Université du Havre I would like to thank Ted for welcoming me as a French correspondent for his blog. For my first post, I would like to give an example……

  • Case of the Day: In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation

    The case of the day is In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation (E.D.N.Y. 2012). The decision does not give details of the underlying dispute, though the title of the case (a multi-district litigation consolidated in the Eastern District of New York) pretty much says it all. The issue was whether the defendant, Société……

  • Case of the Day: Thai-Lao Lignite v. Laos

    The case of the day is Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (S.D.N.Y. 2012). We have reported on this dispute twice before. In the first post, the judge confirmed an arbitral award in favor of Thai-Lao against Laos. In the second, the judge granted judicial assistance to Thai-Lao, which……

  • Case of the Day: TruePosition v. LM Ericsson Telephone Co.

    The case of the day is TruePosition, Inc. v. LM Ericsson Telephone Co. (E.D. Pa. 2012). TruePosition is in the business of “developing and marketing high accuracy location products that operate over cellular telecommunications networks.” TruePosition sued three firms, LM Ericsson Telephone Co., Qualcomm, Inc., and Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., for violating the Sherman Act by……