Product Liability

This Article surveys developments in Georgia product liability law between June 1, 2012 and May 31, 2013. The Article covers noteworthy cases decided during this period by the Georgia Court of Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States district courts located in Georgia

\u3ci\u3eUnited Mine Workers v. Bagwell\u3c/i\u3e: The Civil/Criminal Indirect Contempt Fine Distinction Revisited

United Mine Workers v. Bagwell involves the imposition of indirect contempt fines stemming from a labor dispute in Virginia. In April 1989, respondents Clinchfield Coal and Sea B Mining Companies filed suit to enjoin petitioner International Union, United Mine Workers of America from conducting unlawful strike activities. The trial court entered an injunction that prohibited the union and its members from undertaking illegal strike-related activities. In subsequent hearings, the court imposed over $64,000,000 in fines. The trial court required that the companies prove violations of the injunction beyond a reasonable doubt but did not afford the union the right to a jury trial. While the contempt order was on appeal the parties settled the labor dispute through an agreement that vacated the contempt fines. The trial court granted the parties\u27 joint motion to dismiss, lifted the injunction, and vacated the fines that were payable to the companies. The trial court determined that the remaining$52,000,000 was not absolved through the settlement and was still owed by the unions. Since the companies had withdrawn from the action and local Commonwealth Attorneys disqualified themselves, the trial court appointed John L. Bagwell to collect the remaining fines on behalf of the Commonwealth. The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the order imposing contempt fines and ordered that the contempt fines be vacated pursuant to the settlement agreement. The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed and held that since the fines were civil, imposition of the fines did not require a jury trial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. Indirect criminal contempts involving fines in excess of fifty million dollars are of such serious nature that the contemnor is entitled to full criminal process including a jury trial

Product Liability

This Article surveys developments in Georgia product liability law between June 1, 2010 and May 31, 2011. It covers noteworthy cases decided during this period by the Georgia appellate courts, the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States district courts located in Georgia

Product Liability

This Article surveys developments in Georgia product liability law between June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2010. It covers noteworthy cases decided during this period by the Georgia appellate courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States district courts located in Georgia

Product Liability

This Article surveys developments in Georgia product liability law between June 1, 2011 and May 31, 2012.\u27This Article covers noteworthy cases decided during this period by the Supreme Court of Georgia, the Court of Appeals of Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States district courts located in Georgia

Product Liability

This Article surveys developments in Georgia product liability law during the period of June 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009. It covers noteworthy cases decided during the survey period by the Georgia appellate courts, the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and United States district courts located in Georgia. In addition, this Article discusses bills considered by the Georgia General Assembly during its 2009 session that are particularly relevant to product liability cases

Product Liability

This Article surveys developments in Georgia product liability law between June 1, 2017 and May 31, 2019.1 It covers noteworthy cases decided during this period by the Georgia Supreme Court, Georgia Court of Appeals, and the United States district courts located in Georgia. Product Liability Claims Elements Defenses Spoilation Expert Testimony—The Daubert Standar

Product Liability

This Article surveys recent developments in Georgia product liability law. It covers noteworthy cases decided during the survey period by Georgia appellate courts, United States district courts located in Georgia, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In addition, the Article discusses relevant legislative enactments by the Georgia General Assembly revising the Official Code of Georgia Annotated ( O.C.G.A. )

Product Liability

This Article surveys recent developments in Georgia product liability law. It covers noteworthy cases decided during the survey period by Georgia appellate courts, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and United States district courts located in Georgia. In addition, this Article discusses relevant legislative enactments by the Georgia General Assembly revising the Official Code of Georgia Annotated ( O.C.G.A. )

Product Liability

This Article surveys developments in Georgia product liability law between June 1, 2015 and May 31, 2017. It covers noteworthy cases decided during this period by the Georgia Supreme Court, Georgia Court of Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States district courts located in Georgia