|
 |
News
Insurance
[07/02]
UnitedHealth cuts 4,000 jobs and 2008 outlook
[06/26]
Fidelity: $85k needed for long-term care costs
[06/25]
Health insurance lags most in Southwest, CDC says
[06/25]
Insurer wants to sell wind, flood coverage in 1 policy
More...
Litigation
[07/03]
Continental ordered to trial in Concorde explosion
[07/03]
Florida Supreme Court nixes Indian casino pact
[07/03]
Judge in Ky. gives panel 1 day in fen-phen trial
[07/02]
Judge tells jury to deliberate in fen-phen trial
[07/02]
Astra shares up 6 pct on Seroquel court ruling
More...
Transportation
[07/02]
Cement-truck drivers strike in New York City
[07/02]
British truckers protest fuel prices in London
[07/01]
WTC transit hub design changes after agency report
[06/26]
Oil spill ruling leaves Alaska victims stunned
[06/11]
Engineers search for fuel-saving big rigs
More...
Business
[06/11]
Rude traveling salespeople evicted from Minn. hotel
[07/02]
Fugitive hedge-fund swindler surrenders in Mass.
[06/30]
Oil is making millionaires in North Dakota
[06/23]
Big Dig contractor files for bankruptcy
[06/20]
Northwestern U. to offer 2-year law program
More...
NHTSA Recalls
[0/0]
More Americans Buckle Up and Wear Their Helmets In 2007
[04/04]
NHTSA Presents Awards for Safety Achievements and Public Service
[03/04]
U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters Launches New Service to Automatically E-mail, Instant Message Safety Recall Information
[01/04]
U.S. DOT Announces Upgraded Roof Strength Proposal
[09/08]
NHTSA Releases List of Model Year 2008 Vehicles For Crash and Rollover Testing
More...
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
Case Summaries
Transportation
[07/03]
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Swanson
Provisions of Minnesota Statute sections 609.849(a)(1) and (a)(2), governing a railroad's treatment of injured workers, are both preempted by the Internal Control Plans regulations adopted by the Federal Railroad Administration pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act.
[07/02]
Lundeen v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co.
In consolidated appeals challenging the constitutionality of Congress's recent amendment to 49 U.S.C. Section 20106 of the Federal Railway Safety Act, the circuit court finds that: 1) Congress did not violate the constitution in making the amendment, and thus the federal preemptive effect directly addressed by the amendment applies to the underlying case; and 2) arguments advanced with respect to the amendment's violation of separation of powers doctrine, due process, equal protection, and Ex Post Facto clauses failed.
[07/02]
Sunset Skyranch Pilots Ass'n v. County of Sacramento
The State Aeronautics Act does not compel a county to allow continued operation of an airport. Further, denying the renewal of a conditional use permit, which will result to the closure of an airport, is a "project" that requires an initial study as provided for under the California Environmental Quality Act.
[07/01]
Daniels v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In a suit against the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Locomotive Engineer Review Board (LERB), and a railroad alleging they violated due process by demoting locomotive engineers without a hearing, dismissal of the claims is affirmed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act.
More...
Insurance Law
[07/03]
State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WCAB
The California Supreme Court finds that the Legislature intended to require employers to conduct utilization review when considering requests for medical treatment, and employers may not use Labor Code section 4062 as an alternative method for disputing employees' treatment requests.
[07/02]
Sgro v. Danone Waters of N. Am., Inc.
In an ERISA action arising from a denial of plaintiff's claim for disability benefits, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) dismissal of state law claims was proper as defendant's disability plan is governed by ERISA, but the dismissal should have been without prejudice; 2) a California insurance regulation does not require defendants to reimburse plaintiff for the cost of copying the medical records that defendant-insurer/administrator requested, as that regulation is preempted by ERISA; 3) defendants did not violate ERISA's regulation on "claims procedures" by requiring documentation from plaintiff regarding his claim; and 4) a remand was required in part as to dismissal of a claim that defendants violated ERISA section 1132(c)(1) for failing to turn over certain documents.
[07/02]
Wakkinen v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am.
In an ERISA action, summary judgment for defendant upholding its denial of long-term disability benefits under an employer-offered plan is affirmed where substantial evidence supported plan administrator's finding that claimant was not "continuously disabled" through the 180 days of his elimination period as defined within the policy in dispute.
[06/30]
Stamp v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
Plan administrators of an employee benefits plan governed under ERISA may reasonably conclude that an insured, killed in a one-car collision with a tree while driving with BAC of 3 times the legal limit, did not die as a result of an "accident" for purposes of his Accidental Death and Dismemberment life insurance policies.
More...
Commercial Law
[07/02]
Deckers Corp. v. US
In a suit contesting the proper classification of three styles of sports sandals under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, a decision holding that the merchandise was properly classified under subheading 6404.19.35 is affirmed where the sandals at issue have open toes and open heels, and lack the features of the named exemplars of 6406.11.80, and thus the imported goods are not classifiable under that subheading notwithstanding their claimed status as athletic footwear.
[07/02]
Cavin v. Home Loan Ctr., Inc.
In a suit involving a mailer sent by defendant announcing its mortgage program and claiming that defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to present plaintiffs' with a firm offer of credit, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the letter at issue presented a firm offer of credit, despite the absence of some material terms and the minimal number of consumers who obtained the loan; and 2) thus, defendant did not violate the FCRA.
[06/30]
Waltrip v. Kimberlin
In a priority dispute between competing liens, by a judgment creditor and debtor's attorney, over settlement proceeds, judgment finding the judgment lien had priority over the attorney lien is reversed and remanded where: 1) the creditor had a lien which did not cover commercial tort claims while the settlement proceeds at issue stemmed from commercial tort claims; 2) the attorney lien was created by the retainer agreement between plaintiffs and counsel, and it was created before creditor filed a notice of lien in the pending action; and 3) the notice of lien did not relate back to prior liens, as those liens covered different property.
[06/26]
Absher v. Autozone, Inc.
Civil Code section 1747.08, which prohibits merchants from obtaining personal identification information from credit card users, does not apply to a refund for the return of merchandise purchased by credit card.
More...
Professional Malpractice
[07/02]
Allen v. Brown Clinic, P.L.L.P
In a medical malpractice suit, jury verdict for defendant-doctor is affirmed over claims that the district court erred when it denied his motion to exclude for cause: 1) all jurors who had ever received medical treatment at a particular clinic or with a particular doctor; 2) all jurors who had family members who had been treated at the clinic or by the doctor; and 3) two jurors who had relatives with connections to the defendants. A claim that the district court erred in denying a motion to exclude defendants' medical expert is also rejected.
[07/02]
Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.
[06/26]
Florida Bar v. Glueck
Upon review of a referee's report recommending that respondent be found guilty of professional misconduct and be suspended from the practice of law for three years, the court affirms the recommendation of guilt and changes the punishment to disbarment over claims of error regarding: 1) a finding that respondent formed a partnership with a non-lawyer; 2) whether the partnership's activities did not conduct constitute the practice of law; 3) findings of fact that respondent made misrepresentations to the Bar during its investigation; 4) findings of fact to support the recommendation of misconduct with regard to clients; and 5) the referee's failure to find mitigating factors.
[06/25]
Ellis v. Grant Thornton LLP
In a suit for negligent misrepresentation arising from plaintiff's acceptance of a job as president of a small community bank based on audit reports made by defendant, judgment against defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff was not the member of a limited group for whose benefit the report was prepared; 2) defendant was hired for the benefit of the company and not for the benefit of potential employees; 3) more than tenuous awareness is required in order to impose liability since it would turn the Restatement rule relied upon by the court into a foreseeability approach that has been rejected; 4) defendant was not assuming the risk that third parties would rely on its report; and 5) the report stated that it was not intended to be used by third parties, and as such, plaintiff could not rely on statements made based on the report.
More...
|
 |
|
