Case Summaries
Labor & Employment Law
Contracts
Insurance Law
Civil Procedure
Labor & Employment Law
[12/04]
Carlson v. Roetzel & Andress
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising after plaintiff was ordered to repay workers compensation benefits previously granted by a state agency, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where none of the defendants in the case were, as a matter of law, state actors under section 1983 since they only invoked state authority and never exercised state power over plaintiff or conspired with state officials.
[12/04]
Jackson v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
In an action against defendant-UPS alleging race and gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, summary judgment for UPS is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of race or gender discrimination because UPS's initial disqualification decision did not constitute an adverse employment action; 2) plaintiff failed to establish a causal connection between plaintiff's EEOC charges and UPS's disqualification decision; and thus 3) she failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
[12/04]
Dee v. Borough of Dunmore
In a suit by a borough firefighter, alleging due-process violations by the borough council when it suspended him for allegedly failing to meet training requirements, summary judgment for defendants is vacated and remanded where: 1) plaintiff had a property interest in not being suspended without just cause; and 2) additional fact finding was required to determine whether plaintiff asserted a cognizable liberty interest based on his suspension and the related damage to his reputation.
[12/04]
King v. City of Madison
In a suit alleging failure to accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant's nondiscriminatory application of its disability layoff policy, after considering plaintiff for other vacant positions, was a reasonable accommodation.
[12/02]
Lehto v. Bd. of Educ. of the Caesar Rodney Sch. Dist.
Dismissal of plaintiff-teacher on grounds of immorality is affirmed where: substantial evidence supported the school board's findings that 1) plaintiff had engaged in a sexual relationship with a minor who was plaintiff's former student; and 2) there was a sufficient nexus between that relationship and plaintiff's fitness to teach.
More...
Contracts
[12/03]
Qorvis Communications, LLC v. Wilson
Judgment on arbitration award for defendant-former executive employee's breach employment agreement in the amount of $366,037.22 is affirmed where: 1) the arbitration clause in a 2003 employment agreement between plaintiff and defendant authorized the district court to enter judgment on the arbitration award; 2) none of the grounds advanced by defendant were sufficient to justify vacation of the award.
[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]
Lawrence v. Graubard Miller
In a suit arising from legal proceedings surrounding the administration of an estate, denial of a motion to dismiss a law firm's petition seeking to compel the payment of legal fees is affirmed where the question of whether the retainer agreement at issue was unenforceable on the basis of unconscionability, either at the time it was entered into or in retrospect, was a factual one that could not be answered at the pre-answer motion stage.
[12/02]
Huschke v. Slater
In a matter involving an order for defendant attorney to pay a discovery sanction, motion to dismiss appeal is granted and court imposes monetary sanctions payable to the courts on defendant's counsel where: 1) the dispute between the parties was resolved by a settlement agreement; and 2) defendant's counsel's violation of rule 8.244 was not just unsatisfactorily explained and unreasonable, but was also injurious to the court, other parties, and taxpayers.
[11/10]
Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
In a suit involving Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed where the arbitration clause in question bound plaintiff to arbitrate his dispute with defendant, even though defendant was not a signatory to the original agreement. (Revised opinion)
More...
Insurance Law
[12/02]
Love v. Dell Inc.
In a suit arising from the denial of health benefits under a plan subject to ERISA, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where two separate decisions by defendant-plan administrator to deny coverage as not medically necessary were supported by substantial evidence in the record, and were therefore not abuses of discretion.
[12/02]
Paul v. Landsafe Flood Determination Inc.
In a suit alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation in an erroneous determination that plaintiffs' home was not located in a flood zone, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where, under Mississippi law, the erroneous flood-zone determination was the kind of professional opinion, developed in the course of a party's business and supplied for the guidance of others in a transaction, on which justifiable and detrimental reliance by a reasonably foreseeable person might be shown to have occurred.
[12/02]
Med. Mut. of Ohio v. k. Amalia Enters. Inc.
In a group health insurer's suit against parents, as well as one parent's employer and its CFO, for failing to disclose that parents' dependent son had a preexisting medical condition (hemophilia), summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where insurer's ERISA, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims were barred by a contractual limitations provision.
[12/02]
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp.
In a per curiam decision related to a commercial general liability insurance policy taken out by a general contractor, the following question is certified to state supreme court: Does the doctrine of Lex Loci Contractus apply to a dispute about coverage that involves a policy for comprehensive general liability insurance, made outside of Florida, that insure the operations of a contractor on a project located in Florida?
[11/25]
Continental Casualty Co. v. Stradford
In an action to determine whether plaintiff-insurer timely disclaimed coverage in defense of two dental malpractice actions on the basis of defendant's non-cooperation, grant of summary judgment to defendants is reversed where issues of fact remain with respect to the timeliness of plaintiff's disclaimer.
More...
Civil Procedure
[12/04]
Carlson v. Roetzel & Andress
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising after plaintiff was ordered to repay workers compensation benefits previously granted by a state agency, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where none of the defendants in the case were, as a matter of law, state actors under section 1983 since they only invoked state authority and never exercised state power over plaintiff or conspired with state officials.
[12/04]
LeVine v. Roebuck
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging that a correctional officer and two prison nurses violated plaintiff's Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights by forcing him to undergo catheterization to avoid prison discipline when he could not provide a urine sample for a random drug test, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed, although on alternate grounds in part, where: 1) the district court erred in concluding that defendant-correctional officer violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights because he presented no evidence that she was personally responsible for any involuntary catheterization that occurred; 2) summary judgment for nurses was proper; and 3) the allegations fell short of raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind to support an Eighth Amendment brutality claim.
[12/04]
Johnson v. Orr
In a suit claiming civil-rights violations by defendant-county for its failure to determine before the fact that a parcel of land purchased by plaintiff in a tax sale was not in fact in delinquency, dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applied to deny federal jurisdiction over an appeal of a state court decision; and 2) an additional claim under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act was insubstantial and frivolous, and did not grant federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
[12/04]
McKnight v. Gen. Motors Corp.
Disabled former employees do not have standing under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to bring suit against their former employers for discrimination with respect to the payment of post-employment fringe benefits.
[12/03]
Thomas v. City of Blanchard
In action brought by former building code inspector against his former employer-city claiming his discharge was in retaliation for his reporting certain suspected illegality to the state Bureau of Investigation, summary judgment for all defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff's speech was not made pursuant to his professional duties and was therefore constitutionally protected; 2) the question of whether he was fired for that speech is a matter of disputed fact; but 3) defendant-mayor was entitled to summary judgment as he did not personally participate in the alleged violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights.
More...
|
