News
Health Care
[08/15]
Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners Reports Second Quarter 2008 Financial Results
[08/15]
Salmonella outbreak winds down; questions remain
[08/15]
6 get Legionnaires' disease in upstate NY; 1 dies
[08/15]
NYC heroes lift bus off pregnant woman; baby saved
[08/15]
Former half-ton man endures hard times in Nebraska
More...
Tort
[08/19]
NY state firefighters deliver 3 babies in transit
[08/19]
Suit accuses restaurant of giving man big tapeworm
[08/19]
Sailor, knocked from boat, rescued 12 hours later
[08/14]
Calif. mom gives birth on front lawn by herself
[08/01]
Boy, 4, tries to drive to grandma's house, crashes
More...
Case Summaries
Health Law
[08/20]
Bond v. Beard
In a capital-murder case, denial of petition for habeas relief as to defendant's conviction, and grant of relief as to his death sentence, are affirmed where: 1) defendant's Batson claim had been fully considered and properly rejected by state courts; 2) prosecutor's Bruton violations, in which he identified defendant as the party named in a co-defendant's confession, were harmless error; 3) jury instructions were proper; but 4) defendant's counsel for the penalty phase performed inadequately by failing to investigate fully defendant's background and mental health, and defendant was prejudiced by this failure.
[08/19]
US v. Bonin
In a case involving an individual previously arrested for making threats to country music singer George Strait and later for threats to a magistrate judge, an order committing defendant to the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to a dangerousness determination is vacated and remanded where the determination contravened the requisite statutory procedure.
[08/19]
US v. Farr
A conviction for tax fraud is reversed where during trial the government constructively amended the indictment against her, trying her not just for the crime described in the indictment (failure to pay quarterly employment taxes for a medical clinic) but also for a separate and additional offense (failure to pay a trust fund recovery penalty assessed against her personally). The circuit court does, however, reject a claim that there was insufficient evidence in the record to sustain her conviction, and that consequently she could not be subjected to retrial under a lawful indictment.
[08/19]
Vaughn v. Epworth Villa
In an action alleging that plaintiff was retaliated against by defendant for participating in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) process, dismissal of the claim is affirmed where: 1) although plaintiff engaged in a "protected activity" when she submitted unredacted medical records to the EEOC; 2) however, defendant provided a legitimate and facially non-retaliatory reason for its decision to terminate her based on the violation of the organization's policies and procedures regarding confidentiality when without authorization, specifically because she provided unredacted medical records to the EEOC; 3) plaintiff failed to establish that the reason was pretextual; and 4) she did not produce direct evidence of retaliation.
[08/19]
Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C.
In a class-action suit alleging injury caused by methylmercury and other harmful compounds in defendant's canned tuna products, grant of a motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the FDA had not enacted a pervasive regulatory scheme regarding mercury in tuna that would preempt plaintiff's state-law claims; 2) the FDA's decision not to require warning labels on tuna was not a conclusive determination preempting a state failure-to-warn claim; and 3) the FDA had not expressly rejected mercury warnings as misbranding under federal law.
More...
Injury & Tort Law
[08/20]
Boschetto v. Hansing
The sale of one automobile via the eBay website, without more, does not provide sufficient "minimum contacts" to establish jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in the forum state.
[08/20]
Theme Promotions, Inc. v. News Am. Mktg. FSI
In a case involving, inter alia, whether right of first refusal agreements between a publisher of advertising tools and packaged goods companies violate California antitrust and tort law, judgment in the matter is affirmed primarily as the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
[08/20]
Piscitelli v. Salesian Society
In a negligence action against defendant-Salesian Society for failing to protect plaintiff from childhood sexual abuse at the hands of one of defendant's priests, judgment against defendant is affirmed where, if it is relevant to the issue, a witness may be impeached by evidence of a prior conviction in order to show bias, without regard to the nature of the underlying crime as it relates to the character traits of honesty and truthfulness.
[08/20]
Soto-Lebron v. Federal Express Corp.
In a matter brought by former employee against defendant FedEx following his termination, grant of FedEx's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the slander and libel claims is affirmed where: 1) the evidence introduced in support of the slander claim "does not rise to more than informal rumors" circulating among employees, for which FedEx cannot be held liable; and 2) there was sufficient evidence to support liability for libel. Case is remanded for new trial on damages for the libel claim where admission of irrelevant evidence tainted the jury's damage calculation and that taint was not cured by remittitur. Denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is reversed where former employee-plaintiff did not introduce any evidence suggesting that a subsequent employer or potential employer treated him adversely as a result of the defamatory statements made by FedEx.
[08/19]
Pelton-Shephard Indus. v. Delta Pkg. Products, Inc.
In an action to recover damages owed by defendant-distributor related to terminated distribution agreement, default judgment for plaintiff company is reversed where: 1) the trial court failed in its responsibilities under the Civil Discovery Act; 2) the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion to compel after the discovery motion cutoff date when plaintiff had not moved to reopen discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050; and 3) the trial court prejudicially abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for relief from the waiver of objection because defendant's failure to timely respond to the inspection demands was the result of its attorney's excusable neglect.
More...
Professional Malpractice
[08/15]
US v. Chube
In the prosecution of two doctors for illegitimately prescribing the painkiller OxyContin, convictions for unlawful distribution of controlled substances and defrauding a health benefit program are affirmed, and sentences vacated and remanded, where: 1) the testimony of two physician expert witnesses as to violations of the standards of medical care was properly allowed, and did not go so far as to offer an impermissible opinion on defendants' subjective intent; and 2) under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applicable to judicial findings of relevant conduct during sentencing, the government's evidence did not show that all of defendants' prescribing activities should be included in relevant conduct calculations.
[08/15]
CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin
In a suit against a law firm for damages, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and legal malpractice, summary judgment for the law firm is reversed where: 1) plaintiff established genuine issues of material fact regarding not only whether it impliedly consented to a conflict of interest, but also whether it could even consent to the conflict in the first instance; and 2) the district court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment prior to discovery.
[08/11]
McIntosh v. Partridge
In a suit by a dentist dismissed from his position at a state-run home after his return from active military duty, summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed in part, and vacated with claims dismissed in part, where: 1) no federal jurisdiction existed to hear plaintiff's Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) claim, as a USERRA claim against the state as an employer was required to be brought in state court; 2) evidence considered at the summary judgment phase was admissible; 3) due process claims against defendant-supervisor in his individual capacity failed because plaintiff did not allege a constitutional due-process violation and because supervisor was entitled to a defense of qualified immunity; 4) due process claims against supervisor in his official capacity were barred by sovereign immunity; and 5) a state-law defamation claim was properly dismissed based on defendant-supervisor's official immunity.
[08/08]
Auto Servs. Co. v. KPMG, LLP
In an action brought by a corporation engaged in marketing vehicle warranties against defendants alleging professional-negligence in the preparation of certain financial documents, dismissal of the claims and denial of reconsideration are affirmed where, although the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration as untimely under a local rule, the error was harmless.
[08/07]
Lockerby v. Sierra
In the bankruptcy context, an intentional breach of contract cannot give rise to nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(6) unless it is accompanied by conduct that constitutes a tort under state law.
More...
