News
Tort
[11/12]
W.Va. man beats health insurer in court over $40
[11/05]
Teen compacted in Wis. garbage truck, survives
[10/29]
University of Minnesota makes flu shot record try
More...
Insurance
[11/14]
Assured Guaranty buys FSA Holdings for $722M
[11/13]
Zurich Financial 3Q profits plummet 90 percent
[11/13]
Aetna tells employees it will pursue staff cuts
More...
Intellectual Property
[10/23]
Judge bans Mongols from wearing trademark logo
[11/17]
Online startup aims to improve patent quality
[11/07]
Honda shows wearable device that helps you walk
More...
Transportation
[11/14]
EADS rebounds to profit in 3rd quarter
[11/14]
Nissan to further cut production in Japan
[11/14]
Senate will take up $25 billion auto bill Monday
More...
Sports
[11/14]
NASCAR bans 2009 testing to save teams cash
[11/11]
NASCAR's France not pleased with ABC bumping race
[10/22]
Vickers docked points, Hamlin fined $100,000
More...
Top Headlines
[11/18]
Suicide case: Cyberspace law or human drama?
[11/18]
Nebraska not obligated to pay exonerated inmates
[11/18]
Federal judges to hear Murtha defamation case
More...
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
|
|
Case Summaries
Injury & Tort Law
[11/17]
Goldstein v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles
In a claim alleging that defendants wrongfully obtained plaintiff's conviction for murder based on their pattern and practice of misusing the testimony of jailhouse informants, grant of plaintiff's Penal Code section 924.2 petition seeking access to grand jury materials is reversed where California courts do not have a broad inherent power to order disclosure of grand jury materials to private litigants.
[11/17]
The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holcim (US), Inc.
In a claim for contractual indemnification related to settlement of a tort claim, the court certified the following questions: 1) whether, under Alabama law, an indemnitee may enforce an indemnification provision and recover damages from an indemnitor resulting from the combined or concurrent fault or negligence of the indemnitee and indemnitor; and 2) whether, under Alabama law, a court may look behind (or beyond) the pleadings (in particular, the complaint) of an underlying tort action in determining the application of an indemnification provision between an indemnitor and indemnitee.
[11/17]
US v. Shefton
Dismissal of petition for an ancillary hearing regarding interest in certain property that was subject to a criminal forfeiture order is reversed where a construct trust can serve as a superior legal interest under section 853(n)(6)(A) and thus can serve as grounds for invalidating a criminal forfeiture act.
More...
Legal Malpractice
[11/14]
In Re Buster
In a suit alleging negligence by a nursing home, in which plaintiff submitted an expert report signed by a nurse, and then sought leave to cure this deficiency by submitting a different report signed by a physician, petition for mandamus relief is granted where the appeals court erred in holding that a new report from a different expert was not allowed.
[11/13]
Mosier v. Callister, Nebeker & McCullough
In a suit brought by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of a nonprofit organization against a law firm and two of its attorneys alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and civil conspiracy, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by imputing the conduct of certain offers to the nonprofit; 2) it correctly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto in holding as a matter of law that the nonprofit's misconduct, as evidenced by the actions of its officers and directors, was greater than defendants' fault in failing to counsel the nonprofit; and 3) there was no error in applying the doctrine against a trustee in bankruptcy.
[11/13]
Teague v. Kent Gen. Hosp.
In a medical-malpractice case, denials of plaintiff's motion for a new trial and for reargument of the exclusion of medical expert testimony are affirmed where: 1) defendant made a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law after plaintiff's expert failed on direct examination to establish the relevant standard of care; and 2) the trial judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by declining to allow additional voir dire of plaintiff's expert via telephone.
More...
Insurance Law
[11/17]
The Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Holcim (US), Inc.
In a claim for contractual indemnification related to settlement of a tort claim, the court certified the following questions: 1) whether, under Alabama law, an indemnitee may enforce an indemnification provision and recover damages from an indemnitor resulting from the combined or concurrent fault or negligence of the indemnitee and indemnitor; and 2) whether, under Alabama law, a court may look behind (or beyond) the pleadings (in particular, the complaint) of an underlying tort action in determining the application of an indemnification provision between an indemnitor and indemnitee.
[11/14]
H&R Block, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
Class actions filed against nationwide tax preparer H&R Block asserting a variety of statutory and common law claims arising out of H&R's Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) program are excluded from "prior acts" coverage under professional liability "claims made" insurance policies because other class actions asserting similar claims were filed prior to the policy periods.
[11/14]
Island View Resident Treatment Ctr. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc.
In an appeal by plaintiff-treatment center to recover from defendant-insurance company the cost of in-patient care furnished to a patient, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed over claim that the district court erred in transferring the case to another state's district court.
More...
Banking Law
[11/10]
Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
In a suit involving Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed where the arbitration clause in question bound plaintiff to arbitrate his dispute with defendant, even though defendant was not a signatory to the original agreement.
[11/06]
In the Matter Of: Entringer Bakeries Inc.
In a bankruptcy trustee's action to avoid two pre-petition transfers made by debtor to creditor-bank, judgment for trustee is affirmed and award vacated where: 1) the "earmarking" doctrine did not apply and the payments were therefore impermissible preferential transfers; and 2) the entire transfer, not just a part of it, could be avoided under section 547(c)(2) of the bankruptcy code.
[11/04]
In Re: Sterten
In a bankruptcy proceeding, upon debtor's challenge to the claim of a mortgage corporation, seeking rescission of the loan upon which the claim was based, judgment in favor of creditor is affirmed, where a Truth in Lending Act (TILA) defendant who does not specifically defend on the ground that any inaccuracies in its disclosure fell within the tolerance range provided by TILA does not waive the protection that provision provides.
More...
Transportation
[11/10]
Menard v. Fed. Avation Admin.
Petition for review of FAA orders setting out requirements for the operation of two neighboring airports is denied where the FAA's determination that the airports could safely coexist was not arbitrary or capricious.
[11/10]
Omega Protein, Inc. v. Samson Contour Energy E & P LLC
In a marine limitation-of-liability case arising out of a collision between a fishing vessel and an oil platform, apportionment of fault equally between the parties is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not clearly err in its findings of fact or in the apportionment of fault; and 2) under the Limitation of Liability Act, plaintiff was entitled to limit its liability.
[11/07]
Wagner & Wagner Auto Sales, Inc. v. Land Rover N. Am., Inc.
In an action brought by a car dealership against Land Rover under the Automobile Dealer's Day in Court Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1222 (ADDCA), and the Massachusetts "Dealer's Bill of Rights" arising from defendant's termination of the parties' Dealer Agreement, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) as plaintiff was undeniably in breach of its contractual obligations, defendant had good cause to terminate the agreement; 2) there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of defendant; 3) the district court correctly found on the undisputed facts that defendant had repeatedly offered plaintiff reasonable opportunity to cure; and 4) there was no evidence of any oral modification sufficient to overcome a presumption that a 2004 letter of intent expressed the intent of the parties.
More...
Intellectual Property
[11/13]
In Re Basell Poliolefine Italia S.P.A.
In an inventor's appeal of a reexamination, rejection of all claims of a process patent for the polymerization of certain unsaturated hydrocarbons is affirmed where substantial evidence supported the rejection of the claims based on obviousness-type double patenting.
[11/12]
Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg.
In an action alleging, inter alia, copyright and trademark infringement involving the original and remade motion pictures "Gone in 60 Seconds", as well as products relating to the film, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to use extrinsic evidence submitted by plaintiffs to aid in its interpretation of an agreement between the parties, finding that such evidence did not show that the agreement was reasonably susceptible to plaintiffs' interpretation; 2) interpreting disputed language in an agreement between plaintiff and a non-party corporation; 3) applying the wrong legal standard in finding that plaintiffs did not have statutory standing to assert trademark infringement and unfair competition claims; and 4) concluding that plaintiffs did not have statutory or Article III standing to assert claims for declaratory relief.
[11/07]
Teva Pharms., USA, Inc. v. Leavitt
In an action to force the Food and Drug Administration to grant a period of market exclusivity for plaintiff's generic version of the drug Risperdal, judgment for plaintiff is reversed and injunction vacated where the patent cited by plaintiff in its application had been delisted, and even though it was still listed in the FDA's reference guide, plaintiff was not entitled to cite it as the basis for its application.
More...
Sports Law
[10/28]
Kindrich v. The Long Beach Yacht Club
In a personal injury action for injuries sustained while disembarking from a boat, summary judgment in favor of defendant-yacht club is reversed where: 1) plaintiff-victim was not engaged in the type of sporting event where the doctrine of primary assumption of risk should have been applied; 2) at most, plaintiff may have assumed risks, categorized as secondary assumption of risk, which are subsumed in contributory negligence; and 3) whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent and, if so, how his negligence compares with that of the defendants, if any, are questions of fact to be resolved for the trier of fact.
[09/23]
State of Alaska v. Fed. Subsistence Bd.
In a challenge to a Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) Customary and Traditional use determination (C & T determination) allowing the Chistochina community increased permission to harvest moose under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the FSB's fact finding regarding the Chistochina's use of moose was supported by substantial evidence and took into account specific moose populations; 2) the C & T determination was not arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the APA.
[09/12]
Major League Baseball Properties v. Salvino
In an antitrust action alleging that plaintiff Major League Baseball Properties violated section 1 of the Sherman Act, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendant failed to adduce evidence to show that the challenged organization and activities had an actual adverse effect on competition or that plaintiff had sufficient market power to inhibit competition market-wide; and 2) defendant's state-law claims contained no argument as to why the district court's dismissal was incorrect.
More...
|
