Legal Opinion · Dissent

Leroy Haeger v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 8, 2017No. 12-17718, 13-16801Published

1DissentM. Smith, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent from the panel’s decision to remand this case to the district court. The Supreme Court remanded the case to us to determine, in the first instance, whether Defendant-Appellant Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) waived any causation challenge to the district court’s $2 million contingency sanctions award. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1178, 1190, 197 L.Ed.2d 585 (2017) (“The possibility of waiver should therefore be the initial order of business below. If a waiver is found, that is the end of this case. If not, the District Court…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fox v. ViceSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  2. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. HaegerSupreme Court of the United States · 2017
  3. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Leroy Haeger v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber CoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API