More info…
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law) In a Title VII sex discrimination action, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where: 1) there was no evidence of quid pro quo sexual harassment; and 2) Plaintiff’s termination could not be traced back to Plaintiff’s supervisor under the subordinate-bias theory.
General Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown’s, LLC
(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Wholesale) In a dispute involving a change to a dealership agreement, district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed where the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from consolidating its dealerships into a single facility, as the plan would not cause the plaintiff irreparable harm but would cause significant harm to the defendant and the public interest. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to conduct an early trial in order to limit the economic harm.
Henry v. Lake Charles Am. Press LLC
(U.S. 5th Cir., Civil Procedure, Communications Law, Injury And Tort Law, Media Law) In a defamation action concerning alleged defects in engines sold by Plaintiff, the denial of Defendant’s motion, under Louisiana law, to require Plaintiff to show a probability of success is reversed, where there was no evidence that Defendant did not follow up on the request for retraction sent by Plaintiff’s attorney.
attorney tampa florida
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving intravascular stents, plaintiff’s appeals are denied where: 1) plaintiff’s stent infringed on defendant’s patent as the court properly constructed the language of the claim and properly concluded that plaintiff’s stent met the “corners” limitation of the patent under the doctrine of equivalents; and 2) there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that defendant’s patent was not obvious. Defendant’s appeals are denied in all respects save one where: 1) the two monographs prepared by the inventor of plaintiff’s ’762 patent were not prior art printed publications; 2) plaintiff’s ’762 stent patent does not anticipate its ’406 stent patent and is thus valid; 3) different stents created by defendant infringe on both of plaintiff’s stent patents under various limitations of the claims in the patents; and 4) court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s infringement claims against one of defendant’s stents without prejudice instead of with prejudice.
aviation lawyer
More info…
(U.S. 5th Cir., Civil Procedure, Construction, Injury And Tort Law) In a negligence action regarding flood control construction projects, the dismissal of Defendant’s third-party complaint is affirmed, where Defendant’s claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior state court action.
Drobnak v. Anderson Corp.
(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Product Liability) In a class action involving insulated glass products, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ amended class complaint alleging defects in defendant’s windows as the complaint did not meet FRCP rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement; 2) court did not err in finding that plaintiffs’ UCC-based claims should be dismissed as they did not provide adequate notice of the complaint; 3) court did not err in dismissing plaintiff Drobnak’s UCC-based claims as they were barred by the statute of limitations; and 4) court did not err in denying plaintiffs’ requests for permission to file a second amended complaint.
Whittenburg v. Werner Enters. Inc.
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law) In a tort action arising from an auto accident, judgment for Plaintiff is reversed, where Plaintiff’s counsel during closing argument placed before the jury fictitious admissions never uttered by Defendants and launched vituperative and unprovoked attacks on Defendants and their counsel.
accident attorney tampa
More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Evidence, Health Law, Injury And Tort Law, Professional Malpractice) In a medical negligence action, trial court’s order granting a new trial and denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is affirmed where there is no authority in the statutes for the imposition of monetary sanctions for disclosing for the first time during the trial a theory that was not disclosed by an expert witness in their declaration.
Duffy v. Vogel
(N.Y., Civil Procedure, Professional Malpractice) In Plaintiff’s appeal from judgment for Defendant in a medical malpractice trial in which the jury’s verdict was apparently contradictory, the trial court’s order denying Plaintiff’s request to poll the jury is reversed, where the denial of a request to poll the jury cannot be harmless error.
tampa florida lawyer
External articles | admin | 
April 21, 2009 7:28 am | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe