Legal News

Case Summaries

Constitutional Law

[09/05] Wong v. Bush
In a case alleging First Amendment and National Environmental Protection Act violations by the U.S. Coast Guard in establishing safety zones insulating a private super-ferry from blockade by local protesters, denial of declaratory judgment is affirmed despite plaintiff's standing to sue where: 1) the safety zones established by the Coast Guard did not violate the First Amendment; and 2) the Coast Guard need not consider the secondary environmental effects of the super-ferry itself in the decision to establish safety zones.

[09/05] US v. Ault
In a case challenging enhanced sentencing based on misdemeanors in which defendant was unrepresented, the sentence imposed is affirmed as not violating the Sixth Amendment right to counsel where: 1) two of the four misdemeanors considered did not include incarceration; and 2) plaintiff waived counsel in the remaining two misdemeanor matters.

[09/05] Ratliff v. Astrue
In an attorney's fee dispute interpreting the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), an award of attorney's fees offset against debts owed by the prevailing party to the federal government was reversed where: 1) the attorney independently sued under the Fourth Amendment to collect fees not offset against the prevailing party's debts; and 2) attorney's fees awarded under the EAJA are awarded to the prevailing party's attorney, not the prevailing party.

[09/05] Barnett v. Roper
Denial of a petition for habeas corpus is affirmed where: 1) the Missouri procedural rule requiring sufficient pleading before granting an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel constituted independent and adequate state grounds barring federal review; 2) there was no clear and convincing evidence of discriminatory intent in jury selection; and 3) the prosecutor's comments at trial did not deny defendant due process.

[09/05] Woodruff v. Mason
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit alleging that state social-services employees had retaliated against plaintiff-healthcare provider by instigating the launch of a predatory enforcement campaign aimed at driving plaintiff out of business, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal link between its protected First Amendment activity and the alleged retaliation by defendants; and 2) plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to substantiate any of its three equal-protection claims.

More...

Civil Procedure

[09/05] Townsend v. University of Alaska
In a case interpreting the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) as applied to state employers, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) USERRA does not unequivocally abrogate states' sovereign immunity from suits by citizens in federal court; and 2) USERRA creates no cause of action against individual state employee-supervisors.

[09/05] Miner v. Clinton County
In cases alleging violations of due process and equal protection stemming from defendant county's foreclosure of plaintiffs' properties as a result of unpaid property taxes, grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) due process does not require actual notice of foreclosure; 2) defendants' actions were reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide notice of foreclosure; 3) plaintiffs were not entitled to additional notice of default judgment where the previous notice of foreclosure met the requirements of due process; 4) defendants did not violate plaintiffs' rights to due process and equal protection of the laws by refusing to accept redemption after default judgment was entered or refusing to grant plaintiffs a share in the surplus from a tax sale; and 5) there is no merit in plaintiffs' claim that reasonable restrictions on the method of payment of long overdue taxes, such as requiring payment by cash, money order, or certified check, violate due process.

[09/05] Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia v. Gunter
In a claim by plaintiff-Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Care Plan of Georgia seeking reimbursement of insurance benefits paid to defendant from his settlement with a third party, dismissal by district court is affirmed where: 1) Blue Cross failed to establish that this case is not governed by the general rule in Empire Health Choice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh; and 2)the court lacks federal question jurisdiction to hear the case.

[08/29] Bismar v. Morehead
In a medical malpractice suit, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of defendant's interlocutory appeal of denial of his motion for dismissal and attorney's fees on the ground that plaintiffs submitted a deficient expert report is reversed where the motion for dismissal was reviewable on interlocutory appeal.

[08/29] In re Kiberu
In a case involving healthcare liability claims in which the trial court had authorized presuit depositions, a conditional writ of mandamus is awarded to compel court of appeals to reconsider relators' petition in light of In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2008).

More...

Workers' Comp

[09/04] Merritt v. United Parcel Serv.
Decision of Industrial Accident Board to terminate disability plaintiffs paid to claimant by employer is reversed where an admission by employer that claimant's disability was "on-going" was the equivalent of a judicial admission and should have been given conclusive effect.

[09/03] Padilla v. Pomona College
In an action for personal injury and premises liability arising from a worksite injury during the remodel of a dormitory at defendant Pomona College, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendants had delegated the task of making the worksite safe to others, and that they did not exercise any retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributed to plaintiff's injuries; 2) California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (Cal-OSHA) regulations did not establish defendants' negligence per se or impose a non-delegable duty on defendants; and 3) that plaintiff's expert testimony lacked foundation.

[08/29] In Re: Poly-America, L.P.
In a retaliatory-discharge case in which plaintiff challenged the grant of defendant's motion to compel arbitration, petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally granted where: 1) provisions of the arbitration agreement prohibiting punitive damages or reinstatement undermined the purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act and were void as unconscionable; 2) provisions requiring splitting of arbitration fees between employer and employee and placing limits on discovery were not unconscionable; and 3) the unconscionable provisions of the agreement were severable and the agreement was otherwise enforceable.

[08/22] Craft v. Astrue
Denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment that plaintiff did not qualify for Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income benefits is reversed and remanded where: 1) there was not an "accurate and logical bridge" between the ALJ's recitation of the mental medical evidence and a decision to account for plaintiff's mental impairments by limiting him to unskilled work; and 2) the stated reasons of the ALJ for finding that plaintiff lacked credibility were contradicted by the objective evidence.

[08/18] US v. Simpson
A sentence and order of restitution imposed for defendant's crime of mail fraud, involving his underreporting of payroll information for his businesses to his workers' compensation insurance carriers, is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the "loss" caused by this conduct was the amount of additional premiums that the insurance carriers would have charged had they been given accurate information.

More...

Commercial Law

[09/05] Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.

[09/04] Am. Bankers Ass'n v. Lockyer
After remand, in a case interpreting California's Financial Information Privacy Act (FIPA) in light of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a ruling that the FRCA entirely preempted FIPA section 4053(b)(1), which restricts the sharing of nonpublic consumer personal information between financial institutions and their affiliates, is reversed and remanded where the preempted portions of FIPA are severable, narrowing FIPA section 4053(b)(1) to exclude consumer report information as defined by the FCRA.

[09/03] Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm
In a suit over violations of a franchise agreement, judgment of contempt for failure to comply with a preliminary injunction to make available to plaintiff certain items, including patient files, is affirmed where: 1) defendant was given an opportunity to purge the contempt through compliance; 2) defendant waived his arguments that the sanction was excessive and unrelated to plaintiff's damages; and 3) defendant was given sufficient leniency as a pro se litigant.

[09/03] Extra Equipamentos e Exportacao Ltda. v. Case Corp.
In a commercial fraud case alleging that defendant induced plaintiff to sign a release of its claims in litigation by promising to retain plaintiff as a distributor of its products, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed and awards of costs affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) a no-reliance clause in the release was enforceable to prevent plaintiff from recovering for fraud; and 2) the language of 28 U.S.C. section 1920(6) authorizing awards for "compensation of interpreters" does not authorize the awarding of fees for translation of written documents.

[09/03] Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Assn v. Landstar Sys.
In a class action lawsuit brought against defendant motor carrier alleging that freight hauling leases violated the Truth-in-Leasing regulations for failing to disclose that banking fee charges would be deducted from compensation paid to the truck owners and drivers, partial summary judgment and award of damages in favor of defendant is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court erred in finding that defendant was not required to disclose banking fee charge and document charge-back items; 2) district court erred in granting an injunction sealing the pricing information provided to defendant company; 3) district court correctly ruled that section 276.12(h) requires defendant to provide documentation related to charge-back items but erred in concluding that defendant met the requirement; and 4)district court did not abuse its discretion in decertifying the class for actual damages.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[09/05] Sindecuse v. Katsaros
In a case alleging common law fraud surrounding a stock purchase, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where the allegedly fraudulent statements could not support claims of fraud because they were: 1) predictions of the future; and 2) a promise of future action not accompanied by a present intent not to perform.

[08/29] Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cellular One Group
In a suit for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs-insurers did not owe a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer in suits claiming biological injury caused by radiation emitted by its phones, the court relied on its simultaneously-released opinion in Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008), to hold that plaintiff-insurer had a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer.

[08/29] Trammell Crow Cent. Tex., Ltd. v. Gutierrez
In a negligence suit alleging that the property manager of a shopping mall failed to provide adequate security, resulting in a criminal attack in which the victim was killed, affirmation of judgment in favor of plaintiffs is reversed where the criminal attack was not foreseeable, and defendants had no duty to protect invitees on their property from third-party criminal acts.

[08/29] Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss
In a personal-injury suit, jury finding that defendant-employer was negligent is reversed and judgment rendered that plaintiff-employee take nothing where: 1) plaintiff's injury was caused by attempting to step around a loaded cart; 2) the potential danger of doing which was commonly known; and 3) defendant therefore had no duty to warn plaintiff of any risk.

[08/29] Fed. Ins. Co. v. Samsung Elec. Am.
In a suit for a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs-insurers did not owe a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer in suits claiming biological injury caused by radiation emitted by its phones, the court relied on its simultaneously-released opinion in Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Nokia, No. 06-1030 (Tex. Aug. 29, 2008), to hold that plaintiff-insurer had a duty to defend defendant-wireless telephone manufacturer.

More...