News

Personal Injury

[11/20] NYC model who married doorman sues upscale co-op
[11/20] Report: 20-somethings can go 2 years between Paps
[11/20] NYC model who married doorman sues upscale co-op
[11/20] AP IMPACT: Gripes about swine flu vaccine abound
[11/20] Ala. court says woman can't claim $41.8M jackpot
[11/20] Military experiment seeks to predict PTSD
[11/20] $6M verdict upheld in McDonald's strip search case
[11/20] Cost of child vaccines fall, more kids saved
[11/19] Woman awarded $3M in assault claim against KBR
[11/19] AP Poll: Support for curbs on malpractice lawsuits

More...

Product Liability

[11/20] Covidien says FDA extends Exalgo review
[11/20] Former smoker to discuss $300 million Fla. verdict
[11/20] Dendreon's Provenge gets FDA review date
[11/19] Recalls: cookware, ski bindings
[11/19] P&G recalls Vicks nasal spray after bacteria found
[11/18] FDA panel backs Pfizer's enhanced vaccine for kids
[11/18] Medtronic gets FDA warning on heart implant unit
[11/18] Ford, Subaru, VW win insurance industry picks
[11/18] Neb. company says it's recovered recalled beef
[11/17] FDA says heartburn drugs can interfere with Plavix

More...

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[11/20] Hukic v. Aurora Loan Serv.
In plaintiff's suit against defendants claiming breach of contract, tortious interference, and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, arising from a six-figure mortgage he obtained at an interest rate of 10.65% where he was to make monthly payments as well as taxes, insurance premiums and other charges and fees, summary judgment in defendants' favor and dismissal of plaintiff's claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress is affirmed because plaintiff did not comply with the terms of his agreement that required him to submit proof of payment.

[11/19] Hoffman v. Smithwoods RV Park, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against the defendant-Mobile Park for refusing to permit the installation of a new mobile home in its mobile home park to replace an older one that plaintiff had inherited, trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit is affirmed where: 1) the complaint fails to state a cause of action for statutory violation; 2) the complaint fails to state a tort cause of action for interference with contract; 3) the complaint fails to state a contract cause of action; and 4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.

[11/19] Johnson v. Honeywell Int'l Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against the defendants arising from injuries he sustained as an HVAC technician while working on defendants' air conditioning equipment, trial court's judgment in favor of defendants is reversed as the sophisticated user defense applies to the negligence cause of action, but not to the strict liability cause of action.

[11/19] Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against the defendant for sparking a brush fire that caused a significant damage to his ranch, judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) defendant forfeited any error in the jury's verdict form; 2) jury's award of restoration damages in excess of the property's value was supported by substantial evidence and was not excessive as a matter of law; 3) the undisputed evidence established that plaintiff did not reside on the property at the time of the trespass, and his storage of personal property there was not the type of "occupancy" that would justify his recovery of annoyance and discomfort damages; 4) tree damage caused by a negligently spread fire is wrongful injury to trees caused by a trespass subject to mandatory doubling pursuant to Civil Code section 3346, notwithstanding the general provision governing fire damage in Health and Safety Code section 13007; and 5) substantial evidence supported trial court's finding that plaintiff intended to use the property for raising livestock, entitling him to an award of attorney's fees under Code of Civ. Proc. section 1021.9.

[11/19] Jennings v. Jones
In plaintiff's civil rights case against the state of Rhode Island and a State Police representative and other police officers who had executed a search warrant of his workplace at the Narrangansett Indian Tribe "smoke shop", jury's verdict in favor of defendant in the second trial is affirmed as: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in granting a new trial based on the ground that, even if the jury verdict had unambiguously rested on the increased force theory, that theory would have been contrary to the weight of the evidence; and 2) there was no waiver of the new trial motion by defendant.

More...