More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Retail) In claim of stolen property by high-end apparel manufacturer against defendant low-price warehouse for refusing to disclose source of its products, grant of defendant’s demurrer to the operative complaint is reversed where the manufacturer alleged a cause of action for sale of stolen property.
St Petersburg Lawyer
More info…
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Securities Law) In a suit against an investment bank alleging that the bank misled plaintiffs regarding the sale of their closely held corporation to a publicly traded company, denial of a motion to remand to state court and dismissal are reversed and remanded with instructions to remand to state court where the suit falls within the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act’s savings clause, which preserves certain state-law actions.
Warren v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins.
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law) In an action brought by twin brothers injured in an automobile accident against defendant-insurer claiming that they were entitled to reformation of the insurance policy purchased by one brother and his purported wife, a ruling against both of the brothers is affirmed in part, but reversed in part as to one brother where: 1) he was not a family member within the meaning of the policy at issue, and thus, he was not within the scope of an offer of additional personal injury protection (APIP) benefits and was entitled to reformation; and 2) the district court can determine on remand whether a cap should apply to the reformed policy, and also whether that plaintiff can pursue secondary claims.
Cleveland v. Internet Specialties W., Inc.
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Injury And Tort Law) In suit asserting claims of breach of contract and fraud, and other related charges in connection with a $75,000 investment made pursuant to terms of a February 1995 agreement, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is reversed where: 1) summary judgment is not appropriate unless only one reasonable inference can be drawn from undisputed facts; 2) it was plaintiff’s burden to show he was not negligent in failing to discover his injury sooner; however 3) whether plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence was a question of fact for the court or jury to decide.
St Petersburg Attorney
More info…
(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Commercial Law, Insurance Law, Transportation) In a suit against a federally registered motor carrier alleging violations of the Secretary of Transportation’s Truth-in-Leasing regulations, dismissal is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in dismissing certain claims since damage actions under 49 U.S.C. section 14704(a)(2) are subject to the general four-year statute of limitations found in 28 U.S.C. section 1658 for civil actions arising under federal statutes rather than the two-year statute of limitations found in 49 U.S.C. section 14705(c); and 2) the district court correctly dismissed a claim after concluding that an applicable regulation permits registered motor carriers to charge back the costs of PL/PD insurance.
aviation lawyer
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Consumer Products, Intellectual Property, Patent, Retail) In a patent case brought against defendants including Bath & Body Works involving a candle tin with a removable cover that also acts as a base for the candle holder, summary judgment of validity and infringement, an award of damages, and a denial of a motion for reconsideration is reversed where the district court erred as a matter of law in failing to find two claims of the patent at issue to have been obvious, and in finding infringement of those claims.
Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Assocs.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Intellectual Property, Trademark) In a declaratory action seeking to protect plaintiff’s interests in a trademark licensing agreement, district court order confirming an arbitration award is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the arbitrator properly arbitrated equitable claims; 2) the arbitrator’s award is not completely irrational; 3) the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority by enjoining plaintiff’s non-party affiliates; and 4) the arbitrator’s award violates the California Business and Professions Code. Appeal of the district court order compelling arbitration is untimely and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue.
In re Comiskey
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving a method and system for mandatory arbitration involving legal documents, such as wills or contracts, a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming an examiner’s rejection of claims 1-59 of applicant’s patent application as obvious in view of the prior art and therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. section 103 is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) applicant’s independent claims 1 and 32 and most of their dependent claims are unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. section 101; and 2) with respect to two other independent claims and various other dependent claims a remand to the PTO was necessary for it to consider the section 101 question in the first instance.
accident attorney tampa
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
February 18, 2009 10:50 am | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe