MANUFACTURING CASES
U.S. 4th Circuit, May 12, 2008
Othentec Ltd. v. Phelan, No. 06-2297
In an action raising claims under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act and the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to present evidence that defendant had used a computer to withdraw funds he was not authorized to withdraw for an illegal or unauthorized purpose; and 2) plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to show that defendants were using plaintiffs' trade secrets in their manufacturing process.
Read more...
U.S. 6th Circuit, May 13, 2008
S&M Brands, Inc. v. Cooper, No. 06-5828, 06-5829
In an action involving the Tennessee's Attorney General's enforcement of an amended escrow provision in the Master Settlement Agreement between various states and tobacco manufacturers alleging an impermissible retroactive effect in violation of due process, a summary judgment ruling is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice on grounds of sovereign immunity where: 1) continuous application of the retroactive statute is unlikely; 2) states enjoy immunity in federal court for tax-related claims; 3) the inherent dignity of the sovereign state favors immunity; and 4) the semi-tax nature of the escrow system would better lend itself to a suit in state court.
Read more...
ADDITIONAL CASES INVOLVING MANUFACTURING COMPANIES
U.S. 3rd Circuit, May 13, 2008
Beazer E., Inc. v. Mead Corp., No. 06-4993
In an on-going contribution claim against defendant under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), wherein the district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and certified the question of whether certain caselaw precedent limited subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's contribution claims under section 113(f)(1), the circuit court finds that: 1) the "civil action" requirement in section 113(f) is an element of the claim, and is not jurisdictional; 2) the district court retained its original jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues in this case; and 3) defendant waived its challenge to the applicability of section 113(f)(1).
Read more...
