You may forward this e-mail in its entirety.
Table of Contents
- O'Donnell v. Boggs
- District Lodge 26 v. United Techs. Corp.
- In re: Texas Pig Stands, Inc.
- In the Matter of: Solis
- Cravens v. Smith
- Eng v. Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho
- Ta Chong Bank Ltd. v. Hitachi High Techs. Am., Inc.
- Small v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' Int'l. Assn.
- MD Edgar Borrero v. United Healthcare of N.Y., Inc.
- Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. N. Am. Capacity Ins. Co.
- Roden v. Amerisourcebergen Corp.
FindLaw's case summaries are copyrighted material and are not intended for republication without prior approval. You may, however, freely redistribute this e-mail in its entirety. To view the full-text of cases you must sign in
ContractsUnited States First Circuit, 07/08/2010
O'Donnell v. Boggs
In plaintiff's suit against her former supervisor and Board members claiming tortious interference with contractual relations, district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment is affirmed as plaintiff's tortious interference claims are preempted as no court or jury could decide whether the Board's actions were improper without interpreting the CBA's terms. Read more...United States Second Circuit, 07/08/2010
District Lodge 26 v. United Techs. Corp.
In an action claiming that defendant's announced plans to close two facilities in Connecticut and move the work performed at those facilities outside the State violated the collective bargaining agreement between the company and the plaintiff union, a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in finding that defendant's actions did not constitute "every reasonable effort" to preserve work within the bargaining unit; and 2) the district court did not err in finding that the Closure Plan violated defendant's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Read more...United States Fifth Circuit, 07/07/2010
In re: Texas Pig Stands, Inc.
In a bankruptcy trustee's appeal from a district court's reversal of the bankruptcy court's order refusing to hold the trustee liable for a tax deficiency incurred in running the debtor's business, the district court's order is affirmed where the trustee exceeded his authority, violated the plan, and committed willful misconduct, and therefore the Trust Agreement did not limit his liability. Read more...
United States Seventh Circuit, 07/09/2010
In the Matter of: Solis
In Chapter 7 proceedings, district court's affirmance of bankruptcy court's denial of an attorney's claim against the estate for $49,719.63 in attorney fees and costs is affirmed as, under the terms of the contingent fee agreement, the attorney is entitled to a percentage of only the money he actually recovered from other parties, not a percentage of the money the debtor had received earlier. Read more...United States Eighth Circuit, 07/06/2010
Cravens v. Smith
In an action raising a claim for indemnification from defendants for a judgment incurred by plaintiff in a separate lawsuit brought by a patient allegedly harmed by the negligence of plaintiff, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to identify any contractual language specifying that defendants had a duty to defend plaintiff; 2) any decision not to admit evidence of whether defendants were bound by the underlying judgment was harmless, as the record contained other evidence of prejudice; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking a venireperson. Read more...United States Eighth Circuit, 07/09/2010
Eng v. Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho
In a declaratory judgment action against a law firm seeking a judgment that plaintiff firm need not share a portion of the attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff in a personal injury action, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where, even assuming there was a fee-splitting agreement between the parties, this agreement did not comply with Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1.5(e). Read more...United States Ninth Circuit, 07/07/2010
Ta Chong Bank Ltd. v. Hitachi High Techs. Am., Inc.
In a complaint asserting several claims against Hitachi High Technologies America, Inc. based on plaintiff-bank's interest in the accounts receivable of a third party, pursuant to certain factoring agreements entered into by those entities, a dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the claims were based solely on plaintiff's interest in the third party's accounts receivable, which the bankruptcy court had determined to be property of the third party's bankruptcy estate. Read more...United States Ninth Circuit, 07/08/2010
Small v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' Int'l. Assn.
In an action by a union against a contractor alleging violation of wage and hour laws and tortious interference with contract, the district court's injunction against state court proceedings pending a decision by the National Labor Relations Board is affirmed where, because any favorable resolution of the state lawsuits would directly conflict with the Board’s section 10(k) determinations, under Local 32 and Bill Johnson's, the union's suits had an illegal objective. Read more...United States Eleventh Circuit, 07/07/2010
MD Edgar Borrero v. United Healthcare of N.Y., Inc.
In an action alleging that defendant health insurer breached its contracts with plaintiff physicians by not paying them the full contracted rate for services rendered to insureds, in violation of common and statutory law, dismissal of the action is reversed where plaintiffs' claims were not subject to claim preclusion because they arose from a nucleus of operative fact distinct from those resolved in prior litigation. Read more...California Court of Appeal, 07/07/2010
Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. N. Am. Capacity Ins. Co.
In plaintiff's suit for declaratory relief, equitable contribution, and partial equitable indemnity, seeking a proportionate or equitable share of sums it spent to defend an insured in a construction defect action, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where: 1) defendant did not meet its burden of showing there was no potential for coverage under the terms of its policy, or no duty to defend the insured in the underlying action, as a matter of law; and 2) defendant failed to show that the insured had no reasonable expectation that at the time the policy was issued, a $25,000 SIR would apply only once to the underlying action as a whole, rather than to each eight homes constructed after November 30, 2002, as a matter of law, and all of the papers submitted on the motion leave this possibility open. Read more...California Court of Appeal, 07/08/2010
Roden v. Amerisourcebergen Corp.
In a dispute concerning plaintiff-former CEO's entitlements arising out of his employment termination, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) portion of the trial court's order overturning the review official's award and awarding plaintiff a $14,432,141.74 change in control benefit is reversed as the review official properly followed actuarial principles, methods and assumptions found to be appropriate by the plan actuary; 2) trial court was correct in affirming the decision of the review official to the effect the plaintiff is not, at this time, entitled to any payment with respect to potential excise tax liability; 3) the trial court was correct in affirming the decision of the review official as to the application of prejudgment interest at the federal bank discount rate; 4) the trial court did not err in applying the state statutory postjudgment interest rate, and in applying postjudgment interest from the date of the order that is subject of this fourth appeal; 5) the trial court did not err in providing that payments made pursuant to the order are to be applied first to interest and then to principal; and 6) the trial court did not err in declining to award plaintiff attorney fees and costs as the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that neither party was the prevailing party at trial. Read more...
FindLaw includes summaries of all Supreme and Appellate Court slip opinions posted on the official Illinois Courts site. FindLaw summaries include opinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawal. Check the Illinois Courts site to determine if a specific opinion has been released before relying on that case as precedent.
We value your comments! Please take a moment to tell us what you think by sending us an e-mail.
Click here to subscribe to a FindLaw Newsletter. To unsubscribe, click here.
For more information about advertising in FindLaw Newsletters, click here.