(Clearwater lawyer) Cristler v. Express Messenger Sys., Inc.
More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Evidence, Labor & Employment Law) In a class action suit against defendant-parcel delivery company for improper classification of employees as independent contractors, judgment in favor of defendant-company is affirmed over claims of error that the trial court: 1) abused its discretion by failing to amend the class definition in light of developments subsequent to class certification; 2) erred in instructing the jury as to both the burden of proof and with respect to the pertinent classification factors that distinguished employees from independent contractors; 3) applied incorrect legal standards in adjudicating plaintiffs’ unfair and unlawful business practices causes of action; 4) abused its discretion by allowing the introduction of irrelevant and “inflammatory” evidence as to the relative benefits of independent contractor status; and 5) erroneously permitted defendant to recover costs for the production of exhibits that were not used at trial.
Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Sampson
(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Insurance Law) In an insurer’s interpleader action brought to resolve the allocation to beneficiaries of a $48,000 life insurance policy on an individual who died in 2005, wherein none of the defendants-potential claimants filed an answer, an order awarding insurer attorneys’ fees and costs is affirmed over defendant’s claim that the award was an abuse of discretion because the insurer acted in bad faith in filing the interpleader action in federal court.
Lott v. Levitt
(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Entertainment Law, Injury And Tort Law) In a suit by an academic alleging that he was defamed by a passage in the book Freakonomics, dismissal of the claim is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff explicitly submitted to Illinois law; 2) federal procedural rules did not bar the court’s application of the innocent construction rule; 3) the contested statement was capable of a non-defamatory construction; and 4) the district court did not err in failing to address a pro quod defamation claim or in rejected a proposed amended complaint since plaintiff did not allege any special damages in either the original or amended complaints.
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
February 14, 2009 5:59 am
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Subscribe