News

Personal Injury

[12/04] NJ woman sues Pa. sports bar for toilet seat break
[11/20] Dog hits controls, drives van into coffee house
[11/18] Maine man sheds 140 pounds to join the Marines

More...

Product Liability

[11/25] FDA finds traces of melamine in US infant formula
[11/24] New tobacco product alarms some health officials
[11/24] New tobacco product alarms some health officials

More...

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[12/03] Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief and Dev.
In a suit arising from the murder of an American in Israel, alleging that defendants, three organizations and one individual, had provided financial support to Hamas, whose gunmen allegedly committed the murder, and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover against defendants under 18 U.S.C. section 2333(a), judgments against all defendants, and award of treble damages, are affirmed in part and reversed in part by the court sitting en banc where: 1) section 2333 does create tort liability for the financial supporters of terrorist groups targeting Americans outside the U.S.; 2) two of the defendant organizations had not contradicted plaintiffs' evidence on the only material fact at issue, namely that Hamas was responsible for the murder, and were properly held liable under section 2333; but 3) with respect to the third defendant organization, collateral estoppel effect could not be given to a prior order freezing defendant's funds, and remand was necessary for a new determination of whether defendant was knowingly supporting terrorism; and 4) the individual defendant had not rendered material support to Hamas subsequent to the passage of a related criminal statute upon which the tort liability was based, and was not subject to liability.

[12/03] Grissom v. Mills Corp.
In an action against former employer for common law breach of contract, common law defamation per se, and violation of the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), judgment awarding plaintiff-former employee $325,484.08 in attorneys' fees and costs following plaintiff's acceptance of defendant's $130,000 offer of judgment is vacated and remanded where: 1) plaintiff was a "prevailing party" with respect to his SOX whistleblower claim and thus was statutorily eligible for award of attorneys' fees and costs under SOX; 2) the district court erred in awarding plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs accrued after the date of its Rule 68 Offer of Judgment; 3) the district court abused its discretion in basing the Fee Award on the hourly rates requested by plaintiff, without reduction; and 4) the district court erred in finding that "[t]he deadlines imposed by the court required Plaintiff's counsel to work at a faster pace..."

[12/02] Brumfield v. Hollins
In a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit brought by survivors of a man who hung himself while being held in a county jail, summary judgment for individual defendants on qualified-immunity grounds, and directed verdict in favor of defendant-county and individual defendants in their official capacity, are affirmed where: 1) defendant-sheriff was not subject to liability on theories of failure to promulgate policies on medical care or failure to supervise; 2) expert medical testimony was reasonably excluded; and 3) defendant-county was not liable as a municipality on either policy or deliberate-indifference theories.

More...

Legal Malpractice

[11/28] Estate of Storm v. Northwest Iowa Hosp. Corp.
In a negligence case brought by the estate of a stillborn baby, the estate's interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff failed to timely file the requisite application for permission to appeal in the circuit court, or the equivalent.

[11/28] OFS Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker and Green, P.C.
In an attorney negligence case, district court's final judgment of dismissal is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) jurisdiction did exist over the appeal; 2) the undisputed facts showed plaintiff had substantial justification for its conduct as to its expert report, that the record did not support the district court's willful-delay determination as to that report, and thus the district court abused its discretion in excluding witness' expert testimony; and 3) the district court's choice of sanction was within its range of options under Rule 37(d) and 37(b)(2)(C) given its finding of a complete and willful failure to comply with defendant's Discovery Request.

[11/21] US v. Armstrong
Convictions and sentences of multiple defendants for offenses relating to a scheme to dispense certain controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) expert testimony was not required to establish criminal violation of the CSA on the facts of the case; 2) defendant-registered nurse could be held liable for aiding and abetting under the CSA, even though she was not registered to dispense controlled substances; 3) aiding and abetting convictions could not stand on the CSA counts for which the alleged principal had been acquitted; 4) the jury charge was a correct statement of law; 5) evidence of tax evasion as a motive for under-reporting income was properly admitted; 6) there was sufficient evidence to support a money-laundering conviction; and 7) defendant-physician's sentence was reasonable.

More...

Professional Malpractice

[11/28] Estate of Storm v. Northwest Iowa Hosp. Corp.
In a negligence case brought by the estate of a stillborn baby, the estate's interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff failed to timely file the requisite application for permission to appeal in the circuit court, or the equivalent.

[11/28] OFS Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker and Green, P.C.
In an attorney negligence case, district court's final judgment of dismissal is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) jurisdiction did exist over the appeal; 2) the undisputed facts showed plaintiff had substantial justification for its conduct as to its expert report, that the record did not support the district court's willful-delay determination as to that report, and thus the district court abused its discretion in excluding witness' expert testimony; and 3) the district court's choice of sanction was within its range of options under Rule 37(d) and 37(b)(2)(C) given its finding of a complete and willful failure to comply with defendant's Discovery Request.

[11/21] US v. Armstrong
Convictions and sentences of multiple defendants for offenses relating to a scheme to dispense certain controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) expert testimony was not required to establish criminal violation of the CSA on the facts of the case; 2) defendant-registered nurse could be held liable for aiding and abetting under the CSA, even though she was not registered to dispense controlled substances; 3) aiding and abetting convictions could not stand on the CSA counts for which the alleged principal had been acquitted; 4) the jury charge was a correct statement of law; 5) evidence of tax evasion as a motive for under-reporting income was properly admitted; 6) there was sufficient evidence to support a money-laundering conviction; and 7) defendant-physician's sentence was reasonable.

More...