Legal Opinion

Peterson v. C R Bard Incorporated

District Court, D. Oregon

Decided March 2, 2021No. 3:19-cv-01701Unknown

1Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION JUSTIN PETERSON, Plaintiff, No. 3:19-cv-01701-MO v. OPINION AND ORDER C R BARD INCORPORATED; and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR INCORPORATED, Defendants. MOSMAN, J., I write to explain or clarify my reasoning for two prior rulings. First, on January 21, 2021, in a minute order, I ruled on the choice-of-law issue presented by this case. Order [ECF 66]. I write separately here to explain my reasoning. Second, on January 25, 2021, at a hearing, I granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
  2. Kevin Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
  3. Hutchison Ex Rel. Hutchison v. LuddySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  5. Ash v. Continental InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API