Case Summaries
Injury & Tort Law
Injury & Tort Law
[11/06]
Sell v. US Dep't. of Justice
In an action alleging that plaintiff was the victim of medical malpractice that occurred while he was in federal custody awaiting trial, dismissal of the action on statute of limitations grounds is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's mental illness did not prevent him from discovering the alleged injury; and 2) the continuous treatment doctrine did not toll the statute.
[11/02]
Robinson v. US
In an action against the U.S. for encroachment onto plaintiffs' easement, the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act is vacated where the district court needed to determine whether plaintiffs could assert jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
[11/02]
In re: Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig.
In a product liability action against hormone therapy manufacturers, partial judgment for plaintiff and for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's Arkansas law claims were not preempted because there was no evidence that the FDA would not have permitted the strengthening of the labels of the drugs at issue in a manner consistent with Arkansas law; 2) plaintiff's expert testimony on causation was properly admitted because the expert ruled out other possible causes of plaintiff's disease; 3) the district court's instruction on proximate cause was correct; and 4) judgment for defendants on punitive damages was correct because defendants did not act with recklessness or malice.
[10/30]
Groover v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
In a wrongful death action based on a construction accident, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiff's remedy was limited to workers' compensation under Louisiana law.
[10/30]
Lake Almanor Assoc., LLP. v. Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc.
In plaintiff-developer's breach of contract and negligence case against a consultant hired by a county to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), district court's sustaining of defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint is affirmed as the balance of the factors militates against a conclusion that a consultant owes a duty of care to a project applicant in the timely completion of a draft EIR.
More...
|
