Home | Publish your case | Other publications

Volume 25, No. 7
August 2006

Court Documents

Documents can be downloaded from the Exchange. For security reasons, the AAJ Exchange and its products are available only to AAJ Regular, Life, Sustaining, and President’s Club members.

Documents $50

• Haglund v. Philip Morris Inc., p. 142 (plaintiff’s appellate brief in a case holding a tobacco defendant may not invoke the “unreasonable use” defense absent proof the smoker knew smoking would exacerbate an illness). No. PL1056.

Document Sets $95

• Bloomer v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire LLC, p. 143 (defendant’s motion to dismiss and brief, plaintiffs’ brief opposing the motion, and defendant's reply in a case holding that an amended complaint removing claims against a nondiverse party after the limitations period expired established jurisdiction retroactively). No. PL1057.

• Drayton v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., p. 139 (plaintiffs’ motion and brief arguing for application of the alternative liability doctrine and consolidated statement of disputed facts in a case holding the doctrine applies in contaminated food cases under Pennsylvania law). No. PL1058.

• Floyd v. Ford Motor Co., p. 147 (plaintiffs’ brief supporting remand and reply to defendant’s opposing motion in a case holding joinder of a dealership was proper). No. PL1059.

• In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Prods. Liab. Litig.; Mingus v. Wyeth, p. 137 (defendant’s summary judgment motion and brief asserting assumption of the risk, plaintiff’s response brief and motion to strike the defense, plaintiff’s Daubert brief, defendant’s summary judgment motion and brief asserting lack of causation, and plaintiff’s response in a diet drug injury case holding that defendant could not rely on assumption of the risk). No. PL1060.

• Montgomery v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., p. 144 (defendant’s motion and brief to exclude expert testimony and plaintiffs’ reply in a case ruling that evidence a deceased teen would have practiced law is admissible). No. PL1061.

• Najib v. Meridian Med. Techs., Inc., p. 141 (defendant’s summary judgment motion and memorandum and plaintiff’s opposing memorandum and appellate brief in a case holding circumstantial evidence may be used to prove a claim against a medical device manufacturer). No. PL1062.