Client Alerts 

Not Too Specific: Personal Jurisdiction After Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court
by Taylor M. McAuliffe on April 22, 2021
Empty courtroom at the U.S. Supreme court.
The Supreme Court’s latest personal jurisdiction opinion – Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court – seems to raise more questions than answers regarding the contours of specific jurisdiction. A curious result, given the eight-member panel 1 unanimously agreed that Ford was subject to specific jurisdiction in the forums – Montana and Minnesota – where the underlying suits were filed. Writing for the five-member majority, Justice Kagan reached this conclusion by recognizing that specific jurisdiction may exist where a defendant’s
Go
“Almost’ Only Really Counts in Horseshoes and Hand-Grenades…” And Maryland Asbestos Cases
by Taylor M. McAuliffe on July 11, 2019
On July 3, 2019, the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed the decision of the Court of Special Appeals in Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Tr. v. Busch, 238 Md. App. 695 (2018), aff’d, No. 58, 2019 WL 2865070 (Md. July 3, 2019). The Court found that the jury reasonably inferred that, based on W&G’s “substantial” presence during the construction of a high school building, W&G was responsible for the asbestos exposure and resulting illness of a plaintiff who worked only in
Go
Should the Jury Be Allowed to Infer Product Identification in Maryland Asbestos Cases?
by Taylor M. McAuliffe on May 20, 2019
On March 4, 2019, the Court of Appeals of Maryland heard oral argument on an appeal from a $7.28 million jury verdict in favor of Plaintiffs William Busch and his wife Kathleen against the asbestos settlement trust established by Wallace & Gale (W&G). Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Tr. v. Busch, 238 Md. App. 695, cert. granted, 462 Md. 84 (2018). In the absence of any direct evidence that W&G used asbestos-containing products at the construction site at issue, the Baltimore County
Go