Stoddard v. Lord

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that retroactively applying repose statute to cut off claims that accrued before its enactment did not violate procedural due process because legislature was acting to further rational goal of revitalizing flagging aircraft industry
• holding that “clause (6) and the preceding clauses are mutually exclusive” and that subsection (6) cannot be a substitute for, but must be brought for some reason other than, the reasons stated in the five preceding subsections (internal marks omitted)
• holding that motions under Rule 60(b)(2) and (b)(3
• noting the parties’ agreement that the design, manufacture, and sale of an aircraft were “in connection with a commercial activity”
• applying the statute of repose to bar an action against an Italian aircraft manufacturer without discussing whether GARA applies to foreign manufacturers
• applying the statute of repose to bar an action against an Italian aircraft manufacturer without discussing whether GARA applies to foreign manufacturers

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).