Remington 30.06 ammoRead the Document: Remington Challenges Sandy Hook Ruling in US Supreme Court
Remington is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, after Connecticut's high court rejected its argument that the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded it from liability for the 2012 Sandy Hook mass school shooting.
August 01, 2019 at 03:51 PM
1 minute read
Remington, the manufacturer of the AR-15 rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal of a Connecticut Supreme Court ruling against it.
In its 277-page petition for a writ of certiorari, the gun maker cited the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that is meant to shield firearm makers from liability when their products are used in acts of violence. Its product was what gunman Adam Lanza used to kill 20 school children and six teachers at the school.
But in March, Connecticut's high court rejected that argument, and ruled Remington could be sued under an exception to the PLCAA, which allowed for legal action to proceed under state law regarding the sale and marketing of firearms.
|Read Remington's petition for writ of certiorari:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Patent Disputes Over SharkNinja, Dyson Products Nearing Resolution
Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
DC Judge Rules Russia Not Immune in Ukrainian Arbitration Award Dispute
2 minute read
Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Ex-Six Flags CLO Lands New C-Suite Post—This Time as HR Chief
- 2Holland & Knight Promotes 42 Lawyers to Partner, Prioritizing Corporate Practices
- 3'Pickier' Law Firms Did Mergers at Same Rate Last Year as 2023
- 4Boxing Promoter Don King Hit With $3B Lawsuit Over Cancellation of 'Rumble in the Jungle 2'
- 5Letter From London: 5 Predictions for Big Law in 2025, Plus 5 More Risky Ones
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
