News
[03/12]
Runaway Prius case presents nagging questions
[03/12]
2 killed, 2 injured in Salt Lake TRAX accident
[03/12]
People with variable blood pressure at stroke risk
[03/12]
Brake, driver problems cited in fatal Ariz. crash
[03/12]
Experts say US doctors overtesting, overtreating
[03/12]
Guidelines: Do medical tests later, less often
[03/12]
NYC funeral home van towed - with body inside
[03/12]
Lawyers urge WTC workers to take $657M settlement
[03/12]
Medical testing: more doesn't always mean better
[03/12]
Autopsy: Animal fatally mauled teacher in Alaska
[03/12]
Judge to hear plan to pay $657M to WTC responders
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...
[03/12]
Serafinn v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 722
In plaintiff's action against his local union and the joint council claiming that they impaired his free speech and assembly rights, fined him, and suspended his union membership without due process, grant of summary judgment to the joint council and jury's ruling against the local in favor of the plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) local's claims of error fail because they dispute jury instructions either that actually benefited it or for which the local waived any challenge; 2) plaintiff's cross-appeal of the district court's denial of relief from summary judgment fails because the new evidence he asks for consideration is cumulative; 3) plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding his attorneys' fees award fails because he neglected to refute the district court's reasons in crafting it; and 4) the parties' remaining claims are without merit.
[03/12]
In Re: Kirkland
District court's determination that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine the post-petition interest and collection costs to which the creditor was entitled as the result of a default on a student loan that occurred after the Chapter 13 estate was closed and the debtor discharged is reversed as the district court erred in concluding that the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction over the issues.
More...
|
