 |
      |
           |
|
 |
 Construction [07/03] Bush breaks ground on Walter Reed replacement [07/02] Cement-truck drivers strike in New York City [07/02] Westfield OKs London retail development [07/02] British construction activity falls [07/02] Manhattan apartment sales drop, but prices climb More... Litigation [07/03] Continental ordered to trial in Concorde explosion [07/03] Florida Supreme Court nixes Indian casino pact [07/03] Judge in Ky. gives panel 1 day in fen-phen trial [07/02] Judge tells jury to deliberate in fen-phen trial [07/02] Astra shares up 6 pct on Seroquel court ruling More... Personal Injury [06/11] Man feels fine after being shot in head by nailgun [06/06] Pa. crews rescue nude man stuck in portable potty [06/24] Brain injuries cause half of seniors' fall deaths [06/20] Study: Treating herpes doesn't prevent HIV [06/05] Hispanics dying on job at higher rates than others More... Labor [06/11] NASCAR chairman says former official didn't report claims [06/09] Police: Phony deputy's fake test claim nets cash [07/02] Cement-truck drivers strike in New York City [06/30] Calif. firefighters battle more than 1,400 blazes [06/30] Army study: Iraq occupation was understaffed More... Case Summaries Transportation [07/03] BNSF Ry. Co. v. Swanson Provisions of Minnesota Statute sections 609.849(a)(1) and (a)(2), governing a railroad's treatment of injured workers, are both preempted by the Internal Control Plans regulations adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act. [07/02] Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co. In consolidated appeals challenging the constitutionality of Congress's recent amendment to 49 U.S.C. Section 20106 of the Federal Railway Safety Act, the circuit court finds that: 1) Congress did not violate the constitution in making the amendment, and thus the federal preemptive effect directly addressed by the amendment applies to the underlying case; and 2) arguments advanced with respect to the amendment's violation of separation of powers doctrine, due process, equal protection, and Ex Post Facto clauses failed. [07/02] Sunset Skyranch Pilots Ass'n v. County of Sacramento The State Aeronautics Act does not compel a county to allow continued operation of an airport. Further, denying the renewal of a conditional use permit, which will result to the closure of an airport, is a "project" that requires an initial study as provided for under the California Environmental Quality Act. [07/01] Daniels v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. In a suit against the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Locomotive Engineer Review Board (LERB), and a railroad alleging they violated due process by demoting locomotive engineers without a hearing, dismissal of the claims is affirmed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act. [06/30] Ontiveros v. DHL Express (USA), Inc. In a lawsuit against plaintiff's employer alleging claims of sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement is affirmed where the agreement, contained within a contract of adhesion, was unconscionable, and hence unenforceable. More... Injury & Tort Law [07/03] Crowley Marine Servs. Inc. v. Maritrans Inc. In an action arising out of the collision of plaintiff's tug boat with defendants' oil tanker, a district court's reallocation of fault in the matter is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in considering the coordinated nature of the tug escort, the tug boat's violations of Rules 5 and 17(b), or the negligence of both plaintiff and the tug's captain; and 2) it did not err in apportioning 70% of the responsibility for the collision to the tug boat. [07/03] Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc. In an action arising from an accident with fireworks, order granting defendant-fireworks manufacturer leave to amend and remand for a new trial on the plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claim in addition to plaintiff husband's pendent consortium claim is reversed in part where: 1) the district court did not apply the good-cause standard in ruling on motion to amend; 2) and the district court abused its discretion in allowing the amendment; 3) and the error was not harmless as it significantly affected plaintiffs' claims. [07/02] Anderson v. Commerce Construction Services, Inc. In an action for negligence arising out of a Nebraska subcontractor's employee's injuries while performing demolition work in Kansas, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) Kansas courts would have applied the lex loci delicti choice of law rule whereby the state where the tort occurred governs the merits of the litigation; 2) Kansas courts have only applied section 185 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws to cases dealing with subrogation; and 3) application of section 184's most significant relationship test would result in defendant prevailing. [07/02] Allen v. Brown Clinic, P.L.L.P In a medical malpractice suit, jury verdict for defendant-doctor is affirmed over claims that the district court erred when it denied his motion to exclude for cause: 1) all jurors who had ever received medical treatment at a particular clinic or with a particular doctor; 2) all jurors who had family members who had been treated at the clinic or by the doctor; and 3) two jurors who had relatives with connections to the defendants. A claim that the district court erred in denying a motion to exclude defendants' medical expert is also rejected. [07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability. More... Labor & Employment Law [07/03] State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WCAB The California Supreme Court finds that the Legislature intended to require employers to conduct utilization review when considering requests for medical treatment, and employers may not use Labor Code section 4062 as an alternative method for disputing employees' treatment requests. [07/03] Crowley Marine Servs. Inc. v. Maritrans Inc. In an action arising out of the collision of plaintiff's tug boat with defendants' oil tanker, a district court's reallocation of fault in the matter is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in considering the coordinated nature of the tug escort, the tug boat's violations of Rules 5 and 17(b), or the negligence of both plaintiff and the tug's captain; and 2) it did not err in apportioning 70% of the responsibility for the collision to the tug boat. [07/03] BNSF Ry. Co. v. Swanson Provisions of Minnesota Statute sections 609.849(a)(1) and (a)(2), governing a railroad's treatment of injured workers, are both preempted by the Internal Control Plans regulations adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act. [07/03] United Steel, Paper & Forestry, etc. v. TriMas Corp. In an action to compel arbitration under the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA) arising out of the parties' dispute over a neutrality agreement, summary judgment for union is affirmed where the district court correctly: 1) found that the dispute was covered by the language of the arbitration clause; and 2) left consideration of certain extrinsic evidence to the arbitrator. [07/03] White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. In an employment discrimination suit brought under federal and Michigan state law, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial where: 1) plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to suggest that defendant's purported reason for not promoting him had no basis in fact, did not motivate defendant's decision, or was not sufficient to explain its hiring choice; and 2) plaintiff produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in his favor on both single motive and mixed motive race discrimination claims. More... |
|