News

NHTSA Recalls

[06/01] BMW ( 10V254000 )
[06/01] VOLKSWAGEN ( 10V252000 )
[06/01] FLEETWOOD ( 10V251000 )

More...

Personal Injury

[09/03] Police: Pa. woman zaps self, brother with stun gun
[09/02] For 2nd time, Ohio woman gives birth in vehicle
[09/01] NYC man plunges 40 stories, lands on car, survives

More...

Real Estate

[09/03] Hundreds of Volunteers Spending Labor Day Vacation Building Homes for Low-Income Families as Part of Worldwide Housing Event
[09/03] Learning on a Shoe-String: Top Tips for Cheap Student Living
[09/02] Pending home sales rise 5.2 percent in July

More...

Case Summaries

Constitutional Law

[09/03] Sheffield v. City of Fort Thomas
In plaintiff's suit against a city and various city officials in their official and individual capacities, claiming that several of the city's ordinances related to controlling deer population, violate the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and that the ordinances are preempted by Kentucky state statutes and administrative regulations, district court's judgment in affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the Bow-and-Arrow Ordinance is not preempted; 2) the Field-Dressing Ordinance is not preempted by Chapter 150; 3) although 301 Ky. Admin. Regs. 2:-015 has preemptive force and the Deer-Feeding Ordinance is preempted insofar as it purports to ban deer-feeding within the curtilage of Fort Thomas homes, the ordinance is not preempted in its entirety, as it is a legitimate exercise of municipal authority as applied to deer-feeding outside the curtilage of the home; 4) plaintiff's substantive due process challenge to the Bow-and-Arrow Ordinance is rejected; and 5) the Deer-Feeding Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague.

[09/03] Wilson v. O'Brien
In plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against the City of Chicago and persons associated with his prosecution for attempted murder, brought after a state court set aside the conviction, plaintiff's and a witness's interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the collateral-order doctrine does not support an interlocutory appeal by a party to the litigation who contends that the district judge erred in resolving a dispute about an evidentiary privilege. Here, the privilege belonged to the plaintiff, not the witness, who was a law student at the time he interviewed plaintiff for the acts of which he had been convicted, and Mohawk Industries holds that the district court's resolution of the question of whether defendants may use the witness's deposition that they now possess is to be reviewed on appeal from the final decision.

[09/03] Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his former employer claiming discrimination because of his race and retaliation under Title VII, jury's verdict for plaintiff on a retaliation claim is reversed and remanded as the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to find an actual or constructive discharge.

[09/03] US v. Yancey
Conviction of defendant for possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of marijuana is affirmed as Congress acted within constitutional bounds by prohibiting illegal drug users from firearm possession because it is substantially related to the important governmental interest in preventing violent crime.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[09/03] Campbell v. Davol, Inc.
In plaintiff's product liability suit against defendants claiming that a hernia patch that was surgically placed in her abdomen following breast reconstructive surgery was defective, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the issue of successor liability; 2) district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the post-sale failure to warn claim as there was no contractual relationship to provide services to customers who purchased the hernia patch from the manufacturer; and 3) there is no err in finding plaintiff's claims against defendant were barred by Texas law.

[09/03] Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In plaintiff's suit against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), to recover damages for back injuries that he allegedly suffered while working as a machinist at defendant's locomotive repair shop, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to establish causation, negligence or foreseeability; and 2) the district court properly excluded plaintiff's medical expert's causation opinion for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2).

[09/03] Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp.
In property owners' class action suit against the facility operators of a former nuclear weapons plant under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA), alleging trespass claims arising from the release of plutonium particles onto their properties, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in awarding over $926 million is reversed and remanded where: 1) district court clearly had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331; 2) because the jury was not properly instructed on an essential element of plaintiffs' PAA claims, the verdict must be set aside and the case remanded; 3) the issue of whether federal nuclear safety standards preempt state tort standards of care under the PAA is remanded; 4) the Colorado Supreme Court would not permit recovery premised on a finding that an interference, in the form of anxiety or fear of health risks, is "substantial" and "unreasonable" unless that anxiety is supported by some scientific evidence, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise; 5) defendants failed to establish that any of the state of federal standards referenced in their proposed jury instructions overcome the general rule that the jury must determine whether a given interference is "unreasonable" by weighing the harm against the utility of the interference; 6) on remand, plaintiffs are required to prove the plutonium contamination caused "physical damage to the property" in order to prevail on their trespass claims; and 7) district court did not err in instructing the jury that it could award punitive damages in the case.

[09/02] Lu v. Powell
In an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act against the U.S. and various officials, claiming that an asylum officer demanded sexual favors in return for assisting with plaintiffs' asylum applications, dismissal of the action is affirmed in part where plaintiffs failed to point to any specific duty under the Fifth Amendment or any specific policy to support a claim of unconstitutional policymaking. However, the dismissal is reversed in part where the emotional distress suffered as a result of the demand for sexual favors was an injury distinct from the battery and could be proved by the plaintiffs.

More...