Contact: Patrick McLaughlin; Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP (Missouri, USA)

The Eighth Circuit recently handed down a decision determining whether a chiropractor whose license to practice was suspended prior to a purported diagnosis of disability qualified for disability payments under two disability insurance policies he maintained. Cich v National Life Ins. Co. et al., No. 12-3223, April 8, 2014.

Read more: Eighth Circuit Rules that Chiropractor who had license suspended prior to seeking treatment for...


Contact: Patrick McLaughlin; Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP (Missouri, USA)

The Eighth Circuit, in Melvin Wallace, et al. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 13-1485, April 4, 2014, recently addressed the requirements of adequately pleading an actual injury in fact sufficient to maintain standing in federal court in the context of an allegedly defective product – in this case, kosher hot dogs.

Read more: Is it Kosher? Eighth Circuit rules buyers of hot dogs who alleged products were not 100% kosher...


Contact: Ryan Hardy; Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP (Missouri, USA)

We’re going to take a brief detour from our implied warranty roadmap to elaborate on our previous installment of this series, addressing disclaiming implied warranties. Although we want to impress upon you (once again) the importance of disclaiming implied warranties, we also think it is important to make clear some things that your disclaimer may not be able to do for you.

Read more: Manufacturer's Corner: Implied Warranties, Part 5


Contact: Ryan Hardy; Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP (Missouri, USA)

In each of Parts 1, 2, and 3 of this series on implied warranties, we urged you to disclaim your implied warranties, and promised that we would soon tell you how. In this post, we make good on that promise.

Read more: Manufacturer's Corner: Implied Warranties, Part 4


Contact: Ryan Hardy; Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP (Missouri, USA)

We break from our ongoing series on implied warranties to notify you of a recent opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. We will resume our regular series shortly.

In 2010, Congress tasked the SEC with imposing disclosure requirements on reporting company manufacturers[1] if so-called “conflict minerals”[2] are “necessary to the functionality or production of [their] product[s].”

Read more: Manufacturer's Corner: SEC's Final Rule on Conflict Minerals Partially Stricken by D.C. Circuit