News
[03/09]
SUV backs into Mich. school; 6 students injured
[03/09]
Superintendent accidentally fires gun during class
[03/09]
Park, slain trainer's family want video suppressed
[03/09]
Hoped-for drop in childbirth deaths not happening
[03/09]
Ohio State janitor's gunfire kills co-worker, self
[03/09]
Pa. suit: Bank wrongly repossessed home, took bird
[03/08]
UN says mother-child HIV can be eliminated by 2015
[03/08]
Co. owner indicted in deadly NYC crane collapse
[03/08]
Jet with 74 aboard makes emergency landing
[03/08]
Woman believed oldest in America dies in NH at 114
[03/05]
Multiple people killed in bus crash near Phoenix
More...
Articles
Loss Due to Construction Defects
A construction defect is a flaw or deficiency in a building’s design, the material’s used, quality of the property or the level of skill of the builders. These defects may cost the owner thousands of dollars to repair, cause a decrease in the worth of the structure or, in some cases, makes the structure unsafe. Some defects may be clear to the naked eye, however, some may be hidden and are not discovered until weeks, months or years later.
More...
Who Is Responsible for Birth Injuries?
During the delivery of a child, injuries sometimes occur. Often these injuries are not avoidable. However, at times injuries are the result of medical negligence and may have been prevented if responded to properly and with adequate care. If your child suffered preventable injuries during birth, there may be a number of people held responsible, including the doctor, other hospital employees and/or the hospital. It depends on the type of injury your child suffered and the circumstances surrounding the injury.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[03/03]
Byers v. Intuit, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action on behalf of U.S. taxpayers against the IRS and a consortium of companies in the electronic tax preparation and filing industry (FFA) claiming violations of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) in the charging of fees in exchange for providing e-filing services, as well as a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, dismissal of both claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court was correct in holding that the IOAA does not apply to the FFA members, as it only applies to a government agency and none of the exceptions in Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999) apply; and 2) the district court did not err in dismissing the Sherman Act claim as the FFA members are entitled to conduct-based implied antitrust immunity with respect to the anti-competitive action taken pursuant to the Ceiling Provisions of the 2005 Agreement with the IRS.
[03/02]
Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.
More...
[03/09]
Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
In an action under Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), claiming that a mortgage lender charged plaintiffs an illegal underwriting fee, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the clear and unambiguous language of RESPA Section 8(b) did not reach the practice of "overcharging"; and 2) the UCL claims alleging "unfair" and "fraudulent" conduct were preempted by the National Bank Act, and the allegations of "illegal" conduct failed to state a claim.
[03/09]
In re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Secs. Litig.
In a securities class action alleging that defendants fraudulently accounted for a transaction, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation because their expert's testimony did not suffice to draw the requisite causal connection between the information in the article at issue and the fraud alleged in the complaint; and 2) the generalized investor reaction of concern causing a temporary share price decline was far too tenuously connected -- indeed, by a metaphoric thread -- to the transaction to support liability.
More...
|
