Case Summaries
Contracts
Environmental Law
Government Benefits
Immigration Law
Intellectual Property
Antitrust
Consumer Protection
Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
Entertainment
Health Law
International Law
Legal Malpractice
Professional Malpractice
Government Law
Trademark
Contracts
[05/08]
Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
In proceedings arising after the NLRB brought a complaint alleging that, by attempting to enforce certain provisions of a collective bargaining agreement with DHL Airways, petitioner-pilots' association had committed unfair labor practices, the association's petition for review of a finding that its conduct violated the National Labor Relations Act is granted where, under the analysis of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, the NLRB did not have jurisdiction over this Railway Labor Act dispute.
[05/08]
In Re: Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.
In an action against the government over the indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued and governmentally backed insurance policy, summary judgment for farmers on breach of contract claims is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at a 31 cent quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; 2) the prevention doctrine was misapplied since the indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and 3) there was no detrimental reliance since government programs are subject to congressional modification, and the farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program.
More...
Environmental Law
[05/09]
Sierra Club v. Flowers
In an action challenging a grant of certain "Clean Water Act" ("CWA") mining permits by the Army Corps of Engineers in Florida, summary judgment for plaintiffs is vacated and remanded where the district court: 1) appeared to have predetermined the answer to the ultimate issue based on its own conclusions that mining in the area at issue was a bad thing; 2) analyzed the permitting process with that answer in mind regardless of what the agency concluded and what evidence supported the agency's conclusion; and 3) therefore applied the improper standard of review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
[05/08]
U.S. v. Friday
In a prosecution against a member of a Native American tribe for shooting an eagle without a permit in contravention of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), dismissal of the indictment based on a Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge is reversed and remanded for trial where the Eagle Act and its regulations are the least restrictive means of pursuing the government's compelling interest in preserving the bald eagle.
More...
Government Benefits
[05/07]
Wrenn v. Astrue
A district court's determination that the combined attorney's fees for representation before the Social Security Administration (SSA) and on appeal to a district court cannot exceed 25% of past-due benefits is reversed and remanded where the Commissioner and the court have the authority to independently determine the appropriate attorney's fees, and the 25% limitation on fees for court representation is not itself limited by the amount of fees awarded by the Commissioner.
[05/06]
Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.
More...
Immigration Law
[05/08]
Bolvito v. Mukasey
Petition for review of an order of removal is denied where an IJ did not err as a matter of law when he determined that petitioner could not claim an earlier priority date based on her mother's change of status to lawful permanent resident since petitioner could no longer be considered a child of the principal alien at that time the change of status occurred.
[05/08]
Dedji v. Mukasey
An IJ has broad discretion, in the management of his docket, to enforce deadlines established by local rules, and to deviate from the local rules where: 1) petitioner has demonstrated good cause for the delay; and 2) substantial prejudice would likely result from the enforcement of the deadline. Further, abuse of discretion is the proper standard to apply in reviewing an IJ's decision to establish and enforce filing deadlines for submission of documents.
More...
Intellectual Property
[05/08]
Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
In a patent case pertaining to alleged infringement by Microsoft and Dell of two patents owned by plaintiff-Lucent, summary judgment of non-infringement as to one patent is vacated and remanded where the district court's construction of the term "terminal device" was erroneous. Summary judgment of non-infringement as to another patent is affirmed as the district court's construction of the phrase "each successive iteration including the steps of" was proper.
[05/07]
Solomon Techs., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In proceedings involving imports and sales of certain Toyota hybrid vehicles, an order finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and refusing to enter an order excluding Toyota's products is affirmed on the basis of noninfringement, although the circuit court declines to resolve the construction of a "continuously variable" limitation.
More...
Antitrust
[05/07]
B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.
[05/01]
Michigan Div. - Monument Builders of N. Am. v. Michigan Cemetery Ass'n
In an antitrust action involving allegations of anticompetitive behavior in the market for burial monuments in the state of Michigan, dismissal of the charges is affirmed and denial of sanctions against the plaintiff vacated and remanded for further proceedings where: 1) plaintiff's definition of the geographic market as each individual cemetery lot was too narrow as a matter of law; and 2) the district court failed to provide an adequate reason for the denial of sanctions against plaintiffs.
More...
Consumer Protection
[05/06]
Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.
[04/30]
Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
In a case applying the accrual and statute of limitations provisions of the Massachusetts U.C.C. to breach of warranty claims brought against an engine manufacturer, dismissal of plaintiff's warranty and Massachusetts Gen. Laws chapter 93A claims as time-barred, as well as summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's negligence claims, are affirmed where: 1) the breach of warranty claim, accruing on the date of delivery of goods, was filed after the expiration of the limitations period, and plaintiff's equitable estoppel arguments were unavailing; and 2) plaintiff made no compelling argument and cited no specific facts which would invalidate the exculpatory language contained in a negligence exclusion clause.
More...
Dispute Resolution & Arbitration
[05/05]
Perry Homes v. Cull
In an action arising after plaintiffs' home suffered serious structural and drainage problems, an arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs is vacated and remanded where: 1) the issue of waiver of arbitration by litigation conduct is an issue to be decided by courts; 2) waiver must be decided on a case-by-case basis, courts should look to the totality of the circumstances, and such waiver requires a showing of prejudice; and 3) plaintiffs waived arbitration and defendants were prejudiced, in this case.
[05/02]
Wabtec Corp. v. Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB
In a licensing agreement dispute involving arbitration issues, appeal from a denial of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the district court's order was not an appealable interlocutory under the collateral order doctrine or the Federal Arbitration Act.
More...
Entertainment
[04/15]
Warner Bros. Int'l Television Distrib. v. Golden Channels & Co.
In a breach of contract case, involving the breach of an agreement between a cable television broadcaster and a company licensing programming, a judgment in favor of the licensing company is reversed and remanded for a damages determination where, contrary to the ruling below, neither party breached. Instead the parties just failed to reach agreement on a new term, and continued performance was conditional on agreement.
[03/28]
Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty, Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech.
The district court committed no error in its analysis of the means-plus-function limitation in this case involving an electronic slot machine patent when it described the two competing claim constructions proposed by the parties, and made clear that there was virtually no difference between them. Computer-implemented means-plus-function claims require disclosure of a corresponding algorithm, rejecting appellant's contention that no algorithm is necessary.
More...
Health Law
[05/08]
U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
[05/07]
Trujillo v. PacifiCorp
In an action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ERISA, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) plaintiffs raised the necessary inference of discriminatory motive to establish a prima facie case of association discrimination through evidence that defendant monitored plaintiffs' son's health care costs, and that defendant was concerned to cut down on overall health care costs; 2) there was temporal proximity between the relapse of the plaintiff's son's cancer and the investigation by defendant for time theft; 3) defendant was not able to present a legitimate business reason since it treated similarly-situated employees differently; and 4) there were several irregularities in defendant's investigation of plaintiffs for time theft.
More...
International Law
[05/09]
Baran v. Beaty
In a case involving a mother who removed her minor son from Australia, denial of father's petition for return of the minor pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act of 1988 is affirmed where: 1) based on evidence of the father's propensity for violence, the district court did not err in concluding that returning the minor to Australia would expose him to a grave risk of psychological harm; and 2) because the court was not presented with any proposed undertakings that could ameliorate the risk of harm to the child under the circumstances presented, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for return.
[05/08]
Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)
More...
Legal Malpractice
[05/08]
U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
[04/29]
Kaplan v. Mamelak
In an action involving claims of medical malpractice and battery against defendant-neurosurgeon, judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where the trial court erred in: 1) prohibiting discovery on the tolling of the statute of limitations for days which defendant was out of the state; and 2) sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's action for battery on grounds that defendant did not intent to operate beyond plaintiff's consent.
More...
Professional Malpractice
[05/08]
U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
[04/29]
Kaplan v. Mamelak
In an action involving claims of medical malpractice and battery against defendant-neurosurgeon, judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where the trial court erred in: 1) prohibiting discovery on the tolling of the statute of limitations for days which defendant was out of the state; and 2) sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's action for battery on grounds that defendant did not intent to operate beyond plaintiff's consent.
More...
Government Law
[05/08]
Guardian Pipeline, LLC v. 950.80 Acres of Land
In a condemnation action under 15 U.S.C. section 717f(h) involving the construction of a natural-gas pipeline, the ruling below is affirmed over appellants'-owners challenge where: 1) 28 U.S.C. section 455 does not apply to commissioners; 2) assuming that the section would apply, the commissioner would not be disqualified since disqualification is case specific; 3) the court would not consider an allegation of impropriety under section 455(a) since it was not raised until after the commission had made a decision; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the use of expert testimony since the commission's report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the witnesses.
[05/08]
In Re: Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.
In an action against the government over the indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued and governmentally backed insurance policy, summary judgment for farmers on breach of contract claims is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at a 31 cent quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; 2) the prevention doctrine was misapplied since the indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and 3) there was no detrimental reliance since government programs are subject to congressional modification, and the farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program.
More...
Trademark
[05/06]
Estate of Coll-Monge v. Inner Peace Movement
In an action for trademark infringement and related claims, summary judgment for defendants-non-profits is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in holding that a non-profit corporation cannot be a related company whose use of the trademark is controlled by the mark's registrant; and 2) there remain disputed issues of fact regarding both the doctrine's applicability in this case, and the capacity in which testator registered the marks with the USPTO.
[04/29]
Aktieselksabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc.
In an action brought opposing a trademark application, summary judgment for applicant is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court may consider all relevant issues brought by either party regardless of whether they were brought before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB); 2) the district court incorrectly applied a heightened threshold for a complaint; 3) under Section 2(d) an intent-to-use applicant prevails over any opposer who began using a similar mark after the intent-to-use filing date; 4) opposer provided sufficient facts to establish constructive use of the trademark; 5) opposer's allegations of bad faith intent to use the trademark were sufficient to give notice of the claim; and 6) dismissal of opposer's allegation of common law fraudulent misrepresentation was proper.
More...
|
