Flynn v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co.
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EASTAUGH, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
After settling his products liability claim, Paul Flynn moved for modification of a protective order requiring him to return all documents designated confidential by the defendant manufacturer. Flynn had stipulated to entry of the order. The court denied his motion and Flynn appeals. Because Flynn has not demonstrated adequate justification for relief from the order to which he had agreed, we affirm.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Paul Flynn and his parents (Flynn) sued E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and its subsidiary, Remington Arms Company,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Stauffer Chemical Company, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance Company, Beckman Industries, Inc. Smithkline Beckman, and Monsanto Company Reichhold Limited Fmc Corporation Bridgestone/firestone, Intervenors-Appellees v. International Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
- Dr. Chester A. Wilk v. American Medical Association, the State of New York, InterveningCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1981
- Hazen v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1986
- Jones v. JenningsAlaska Supreme Court · 1990
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Griego v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 2001
- State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Philip Morris Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Harris v. Ahtna, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. GonzalesAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
- Brant v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1999
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.