You may forward this e-mail in its entirety.
Table of Contents
Injury & Tort Law
- O'Donnell v. Boggs
- Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc.
- I.H. v. County of Lehigh
- Cravens v. Smith
- Attorney's Process & Investigation Servs., Inc. v. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Miss. in Iowa
- Eng v. Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho
- Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar
- Small v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' Int'l. Assn.
- Clarendon Am. Ins. Co. v. N. Am. Capacity Ins. Co.
- Jackson v. County of Amador
- Litwin v. Estate of Robert Formela
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
Injury & Tort LawUnited 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 Third Circuit, 07/06/2010
Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against an airline for injuries sustained when he fell while disembarking from an airplane at the Philadelphia International Airport, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim is reversed and remanded where: 1) the holding in Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999), that the Aviation Act preempts "the entire field of aviation safety" from state regulation, does not control this case as the "field of aviation safety" does not include a flight crew's oversight of the disembarkation of passengers once a plane has come to a complete stop at its destination; 2) the Aviation Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder do not preempt state tort law with respect to such negligence claims; 3) the federally enacted Air Carrier Access Act and its implementing regulations do not control the standard of care from the standpoint of airline safety; and 4) the standard of care in plaintiff's negligence claim is not preempted by federal law. Read more...United States Third Circuit, 07/07/2010
I.H. v. County of Lehigh
In a suit against a private foster agency by a foster child, through his guardian ad litem, claiming that the agency was vicariously liable for the negligent driving of the foster parent that caused an accident rendering the child a quadriplegic, a grant of agency's motion for summary judgment is affirmed as a master-servant relationship did not exist between the agency and the foster parent to impose vicariously liability on the agency for the foster parent's ordinary negligence at issue. 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, 07/07/2010
Attorney's Process & Investigation Servs., Inc. v. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Miss. in Iowa
In an action by a company which provides security and consulting services to casino operators, seeking a declaratory judgment that an Indian tribal court lacked jurisdiction and an order compelling arbitration, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the tribal courts could exercise adjudicatory jurisdiction over the tribe's claims against plaintiff for trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion of tribal trade secrets. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the tribal court did not have jurisdiction under the second Montana exception over the tribe's claim for conversion of tribal funds. 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, 07/06/2010
Mindys Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dakar
In a trademark infringement action, a denial of defendant's California anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed where defendant made a prima facie showing that the suit against him "arose from" a protected act under the anti-SLAPP statute, but plaintiff made a sufficient showing under the second part of the inquiry to withstand defendant's motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. 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...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, 07/07/2010
Jackson v. County of Amador
In plaintiff's suit against a county and its recorder, claiming that the county recorder breached a duty to plaintiff by failing to determine that she did not sign the power of attorney or direct her brother to sign it on her behalf in recording two quit claim deeds, trial court's dismissal of the suit after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is affirmed as the county recorder did not have a duty to determine whether the power of attorney and quit claim deeds were fraudulent despite the fact that they were acknowledged by a notary public. Read more...California Court of Appeal, 07/08/2010
Litwin v. Estate of Robert Formela
In plaintiff's personal injury action arising from an automobile accident, judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer by defendant-estate is affirmed as the trial court properly entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of the defendant because the action was barred by the statute of limitations and section 351's tolling does not apply. 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.