Board of Education v. A, C S, Inc.

8 Citing briefs

  1. Mpm Silicones, Llc v. Union Carbide Corporation

    MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

    Filed July 21, 2016

    Co., No. CIV. A. 3:07-0153, 2007 WL 4255280, at *9-10 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 30, 2007) (holding, under West Virginia law, that no benefit was conferred where defendants had no duty to clean up hazardous-substance spill); A, C & S, 546 N.E.2d at 597-98 (holding that no benefit was conferred on plaintiff school districts where asbestos suppliers had no tort or statutory duty to remove asbestos from school buildings, even though asbestos might pose public hazard). UCC cannot possibly owe a tort-based duty because MPM has failed to make even the threshold showing that the PCB contamination poses a public threat, akin to a public nuisance, let alone that UCC should be held responsible for abating it.10 Cf. State ex rel.

  2. Keith et al v. Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed April 22, 2016

    (internal citation omitted). Case: 1:15-cv-10381 Document #: 40 Filed: 04/22/16 Page 25 of 35 PageID #:249 18 any remedy”) (emphasis added); S.D.C.L. § 57A-2-607(3)(a) (same); M.C.L. § 440.2607(3)(a) (same); TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 2.607(c)(1) (same). See also Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago v. A, C & S, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 428, 461-62 (1989) (failure to provide pre-suit notice “is fatal to the cause of action”); Whitwell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. CIV 09-513-GPM, 2009 WL 4894575, at *6 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2009) (dismissing complaint with prejudice for lack of pre-suit notice). None of the Plaintiffs alleged pre-suit notice to Ferring, and therefore, their breach of implied and express warranty claims should be dismissed with prejudice.

  3. Dolin v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation, et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed October 7, 2015

    See Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago v. A, C & S, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 428, 452, 546 N.E.2d 580, 591 (Ill. 1989). Specifically, Plaintiff must establish “(1) a false statement of material fact, (2) knowledge or belief of the falsity by the party making it, (3) intention to induce the other party to act, (4) action by the other party in reliance on the truth of the statements, and (5) damage to the other party resulting from such reliance.”

  4. Greene v. MtGox Inc. et al

    MOTION

    Filed March 4, 2014

    Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 174 Ill. 2d 482, 496, 675 N.E.2d 584, 591 (1996); see also Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago v. A, C & S, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 428, 546 N.E.2d 580 (1989). As explained above, Mt. Gox falsely represented to Greene and its other users that its system was secure and that they would be able to access their bitcoins and currency at any time, and Mt. Gox knew these representations were false—Mt. Gox continued to make these false 25 Business Plan, Woodrow Decl., Ex.

  5. Wendell et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al

    MOTION for Leave to File Notice of Recent Decision Germane to the Pending Defendants' Omnibus Motion to Exclude Testimony and for Summary Judgment

    Filed March 5, 2014

    To state a claim for negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must show: (1) a false statement of material fact; (2) negligence on the part of the defendant in ascertaining the truth; (3) intention to induce the other party to act; (4) action by the other party in reliance on the truth of the statements; and (5) damage to the other party resulting from such reliance. See Board of Educ. of City of Chicago v. A,C and S, Inc., 131 Ill.2d 428, 452 (Ill. 1989). I find that Plaintiff’s case with respect to these elements is sufficient to survive GSK’s motion for judgment.

  6. Dolin v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation, et al

    MEMORANDUM other 79 , Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim 81

    Filed July 24, 2013

    C. Illinois Strict Products Liability Law Support This Conception of Product Under Illinois law, “[a]n item will be considered a product for purposes of the cause of action if to do so will effectuate the policy basis for imposing strict liability in tort.” Board of Educ. v. A, C and S, Inc., 546 N.E.2d 580, 591 (Ill. 1989). Accordingly, “the social policy justifications underlying the adoption of strict liability, rather than a dictionary definition of the term product, should be determinative of that issue.”

  7. Dolin v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation, et al

    MEMORANDUM

    Filed October 18, 2012

    Liab. Litig., 692 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1038 (S.D. Ill. 2010) (emphasis added) (quoting Bd. Of Educ. v. A C & S, Inc., 546 N.E.2d 580, 593-94, 131 Ill. 2d 428, 137 Ill. Dec. 635 (1989)) (finding that “Plaintiff’s ICFA count cannot succeed against [pharmacy] in light of Plaintiff’s failure to meet her obligation of identifying with particularity the fraudulent conduct in which [pharmacy] allegedly engaged”). Nowhere does Plaintiff’s Complaint provide any information about what H.D. Smith allegedly said; who said it; when it was said; to whom it 11 Moreover, Plaintiff’s claim that H.D. Smith acted as “GSK’s agent in distributing [generic paroxetine] in Illinois” (Pl.

  8. The Judge Rotenberg Center v. Blass et al

    MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - Ordered that the Defendants' 52 motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12

    Filed June 26, 2012

    ; see also Bd. of Educ. v. A, C & S, Inc., 131 Ill.2d 428, 546 N.E.2d 580 (1989) (“the proper interpretation of [Restatement of Restitution § 115 (1937)] is that the defendant must have a duty in the first instance. . . . A section 115 cause of action does not result merely because the defendants’ product may be hazardous or damage the plaintiffs’ buildings . . . .