Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving
Docket Number | 14-11714 |
Decision Date | 10 July 2015 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
59 cases
-
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.
...which have followed Justice Steven's concurrence in Shady Grove , and endorse the approach taken in Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC , 792 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 2015). In Lisk , the Eleventh Circuit held that there was "no relevant, meaningful distinction between" the New York l......
-
In re Effexor Antitrust Litig.
...have followed Justice Steven's concurrence in Shady Grove , and, instead, endorse the approach taken in Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC , 792 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 2015). In Lisk , the Eleventh Circuit held that there was "no relevant, meaningful distinction between" the New Yo......
-
Payne v. Tri-State Careflight, LLC
...Justice Stevens joined the plurality opinion as to sections I and II-A, those sections also control. See Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC, 792 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 2015)25 (the controlling rule from the plurality joined by Justice Stevens is that "a federal rule applies in any ......
-
Boyd v. FCA US LLC (In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig.)
...that forbids class actions. See In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig. , 462 F.Supp.3d 1304 (citing Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC , 792 F.3d 1331, 1336 (11th Cir. 2015) ). Following Lisk , the Court ruled that the plaintiffs could assert class action claims under the Arkansas Dec......
Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
-
Trial Practice and Procedure
...O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12(b)(6) (2015).40. Coleman, 334 Ga. App. at 561, 779 S.E. 2d at 755.41. Id. at 564, 779 S.E. 2d at 757.42. Id.43. 792 F.3d 1331 (2015).44. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. 45. Lisk, 792 F.3d at 1335.46. ALA. CODE §§ 8-19-5(5), (7) (2002).47. Lisk, 792 F.3d at 1334. See also ALA. CODE § ......
-
Alabama
...was “[a]dvertising goods or services with intent not to sell them advertised”). 29. Id. § 8-19-10(a)(2). 30. Id. § 8-19-10(f), (g). 31. 792 F.3d 1331, 1336 (11th Cir. 2015). 32. Id. at 1336 (“The Alabama statute restricting class actions ... does not apply in federal court. Rule 23 controls......
-
Left at the Altar: Scotus Promises to Clarify Its Cryptic Marks Rule for Divining the Precedential Impact of Plurality Decisions — but Doesn't
...opinions is narrower is akin to asking, 'Which is taller, left or right?'" (Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC (11th Cir. 2015) 792 F.3d 1331, 1337.)Not surprisingly, appellate courts in different jurisdictions (and sometimes within jurisdictions) have provided different answers to cri......
-
Class Actions
...Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 670 & n.4 (2016).2. 559 U.S. 393 (2010).3. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). 4. 792 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2015). The court's opinion was authored by U.S. District Judge Robert L. Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida, sitting by ......