News

NHTSA Recalls

[0/0] More Americans Buckle Up and Wear Their Helmets In 2007
[05/02] Nations Top Vehicle Safety Official Urges 15-Passenger Van Users to Drive with Caution this Summer
[04/04] NHTSA Presents Awards for Safety Achievements and Public Service

More...

Personal Injury

[05/14] Ex-Marine to pay $11K in recruiting sex case
[05/14] Merck says appeals court overturns verdict in Vioxx verdict
[05/14] Quaid testifies of peril to newborn twins

More...

Real Estate

[05/14] Griffin Announces Quarterly Dividend
[05/14] US foreclosure filings surge 65 percent in April
[05/14] Macy's reports loss on weak sales, restructuring

More...

Case Summaries

Constitutional Law

[05/14] Walker v. Sheahan
In a prisoner's action claiming excessive force, deprivation of access to medical care, and retaliation for exercising his constitutional rights, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff failed to show the widespread practice of the use of excessive force; and 2) the court properly denied additional discovery requests by defendant. However, the case is reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the two year statute of limitations did not apply to some of the claims since the period is tolled while a prisoner completes the administrative grievance process; 2) there was sufficient evidence to support a claim of excessive force and inadequate access to medical care; 3) plaintiff's state law claims were not barred by the one year statute of limitations since defendants failed to raise it as a defense; and 4) summary judgment on a retaliation claims was improperly granted since plaintiff had no notice that the adequacy of his evidence was being challenged.

[05/14] Purtell v. Mason
In a civil rights action against a police officer claiming violations of free speech rights and lack of probable cause to make an arrest, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) for purposes of a Fourteenth Amendment claim, officer had probable cause to arrest plaintiff since his actions qualified as disorderly conduct under Illinois law; 2) tombstone inscriptions in a Halloween display were insulting, but they could not be considered "fighting words" under that doctrine; 3) although the display was protected speech, the officer's mistake about the scope of plaintiffs' constitutional right to ridicule their neighbors was one a reasonable officer might make; and 4) thus, officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim.

[05/13] Price v. Connolly-Pac. Co.
In an action brought by a "commuter seaman" claiming entitlement to "maintenance and cure" from his employer under maritime laws after he allegedly contracted West Nile encephalitis while working on a ship, judgment for employer is affirmed over claims that: 1) under the Shipowner's Liability Convention of 1936, a seaman only needs to prove that an illness incurred, aggravated or manifested itself during the period of employment instead of while in the service of a vessel; and 2) even if a commuter seaman is not on call or engaged in an activity generally considered in the service of a vessel, maintenance and cure is required if an illness is contracted while the seaman is participating in an on-shore activity which benefits the employer.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[05/14] Lockett v. Suardini
In a prisoner's action claiming a violation of his free speech rights when he was forcibly removed from a parole hearing after insulting the hearing officer, as well as cruel and unusual punishment based on guards' use of excessive force and nursing staff's refusal to treat his injuries, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a prisoner is not engaged in protected conduct when he violates a legitimate prison regulation; 2) the prison guards used minimal force and plaintiff suffered minimal injuries when he was removed from the hearing room; and 3) plaintiff did not have an objectively serious medical need due to his minor injuries, and there was no deliberate indifference from the nursing staff since they checked up on the plaintiff twice after the incident.

[05/13] Beazer E., Inc. v. Mead Corp.
In an on-going contribution claim against defendant under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), wherein the district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and certified the question of whether certain caselaw precedent limited subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's contribution claims under section 113(f)(1), the circuit court finds that: 1) the "civil action" requirement in section 113(f) is an element of the claim, and is not jurisdictional; 2) the district court retained its original jurisdiction to adjudicate the issues in this case; and 3) defendant waived its challenge to the applicability of section 113(f)(1).

[05/13] Price v. Connolly-Pac. Co.
In an action brought by a "commuter seaman" claiming entitlement to "maintenance and cure" from his employer under maritime laws after he allegedly contracted West Nile encephalitis while working on a ship, judgment for employer is affirmed over claims that: 1) under the Shipowner's Liability Convention of 1936, a seaman only needs to prove that an illness incurred, aggravated or manifested itself during the period of employment instead of while in the service of a vessel; and 2) even if a commuter seaman is not on call or engaged in an activity generally considered in the service of a vessel, maintenance and cure is required if an illness is contracted while the seaman is participating in an on-shore activity which benefits the employer.

More...