Abigail Luhn

As seen in: JD Supra, The National Law Review

Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work. Claim your profile

Back to Abigail Luhn’s profile

Articles by Abigail Luhn

Supreme Court Decides Shurtleff v. Boston | JD Supra

May 03, 2022 |

By Abigail Luhn, Jane Wilson

| JD Supra

On May 2, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Shurtleff v. Boston, No, 20-1800, holding that because Boston’s flag-raising program does not constitute government speech, Boston violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when it refused to allow petitioners to fly their flag during an event, due to Establishment Clause concerns.

Open in Who Shared

The Ethics of Social Media “Friendship”

Aug 21, 2020 |

By Abigail Luhn

| The National Law Review

Friday, August 21, 2020 Social media information that reflects a person’s physical condition, activity level, and emotional state is a particularly valuable source of discovery in product liability and personal injury cases. See, e.g., Forman v. Henkin, 30 N.Y.3d 656 (2018). Lawyers must take great care to collect that information ethically.

Open in Who Shared

The Key to a Trade Secret Is Secrecy: Third Circuit Agrees Ownership Is Sufficient but Not Necessary to Maintain a Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim | Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP - JDSupra

Jun 19, 2020 |

By Abigail Luhn, Michael C. Zogby

| JD Supra

In a case telling a “sorry story of disloyalty and deception piled upon deception,” the Third Circuit has held that licensees, not only owners, have standing to protect the confidentiality of trade secrets and the right to be compensated for their unlawful use and disclosure. The Third Circuit Follows Sister Circuits’ Lead Advanced Fluid Sys., Inc. v. Huber, 958 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. Apr.

Open in Who Shared

The Key to a Trade Secret Is Secrecy: Third Circuit Agrees Ownership Is Sufficient but Not Necessary to Maintain a Trade Secret Misappropriation Claim

Jun 18, 2020 |

By Abigail Luhn

| The National Law Review

June 17, 2020 Main Street Lending Program – Major Changes and Proposed Program for... by: Joseph Y. Wang Recognizing Juneteenth and Strengthening Company Culture: Tips for... by: Kimya S.P. Johnson and Katrina Grider CPSC Chair Nominee Facing Bipartisan Opposition by: Mike Gentine Growing Bullseye on Skilled Nursing Facilities by: Marisa T. Darden and David M. Maria EPA Issues Stop Sale, Use, or Removal Orders to Amazon and eBay for... by: Lisa M. Campbell and Lisa R.

Open in Who Shared View Duplicates (5)

Whether Asbestos-Containing Components Were Manufactured by Third Parties No Longer Matters in New Jersey | JD Supra

Jun 17, 2020 |

By Daniel Carroll, Jack Frost, Abigail Luhn

| JD Supra

Aligning with neighboring New York, and clearing up conflict within the Appellate Division, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled equipment manufacturers can be held strictly liable on the basis of failure to warn for asbestos-containing component parts made or supplied by third parties. Whelan v. Armstrong Int’l, Inc., (N.J. 6/3/20). The Court in Whelan affirmed the New Jersey Appellate Division’s denial of summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court.

Open in Who Shared

Whether Asbestos-Containing Components Were Manufactured by Third Parties No Longer Matters in New Jersey

Jun 12, 2020 |

By Abigail Luhn

| The National Law Review

Friday, June 12, 2020 Aligning with neighboring New York, and clearing up conflict within the Appellate Division, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled equipment manufacturers can be held strictly liable on the basis of failure to warn for asbestos-containing component parts made or supplied by third parties. Whelan v. Armstrong Int’l, Inc., (N.J. 6/3/20). The Court in Whelan affirmed the New Jersey Appellate Division’s denial of summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court.

Open in Who Shared

Vermont Federal Court Orders Ben & Jerry’s “Happy Cows” Lawsuit Out to Pasture | JD Supra

May 27, 2020 |

By Abigail Luhn, Kaitlyn Stone

| JD Supra

A Vermont federal court dismissed a lawsuit alleging consumer fraud, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment against Ben & Jerry’s because representations about its dairy from “happy cows” did not run afoul of the law. But the court granted the plaintiff twenty days to amend. In Ehlers v. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00194, a Vermont plaintiff sued defendants Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever United States (Unilever) and its subsidiary Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc.

Open in Who Shared