Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
West Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Blow Against 'Drive-By' Class Action Certifications
Recently, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals dealt a severe blow to class actions in that state. In laying the groundwork for a more stringent approach to class certification in West Virginia, the court in State v. Madden, 2004 WL 2750996 (W.Va. 2004), held that it was impermissible for a court in West Virginia, a state that was widely reputed to have the most liberal medical monitoring standards in the country, to include class members from states that have not adopted such liberal theories of recovery. The decision is also important for the court's admonition that classes should only be certified where all class members meet the criteria necessary for certification and its rejection of “drive-by” certifications.
Background
Nine individual coal preparation plant workers from West Virginia filed a class action complaint in a West Virginia state court against various corporations that manufactured, supplied, re-sold or distributed polyacrylamide, a chemical used in coal processing, which is alleged to contribute to reproductive and neurological diseases and disorders, including cancer. The proposed class consisted of thousands of coal plant workers allegedly overexposed to polyacrylamide flocculants while working in coal preparation plants in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, Tennessee, Virginia, and Illinois, as well as their offspring, who were alleged to be at a higher risk of developing genetic diseases and abnormalities. The lower court in Madden granted the certification, certifying a class which was “to proceed as a medical monitoring class action as to all issues relating to Petitioners' liability, Respondents' claims for equitable and injunctive relief, and Petitioners' liability for punitive damages.” Id. at *3.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.