Printer Friendly View
Add To Favorites
Send To A Friend
News
Consumer Products
[08/15]
Making a Film in Your Lunch Break Becomes a Reality
[08/15]
Gap widens between discounters, department stores
[08/15]
Jarring economy spurs rise in home canning
Personal Injury
[08/19]
NY state firefighters deliver 3 babies in transit
[08/19]
Suit accuses restaurant of giving man big tapeworm
[08/19]
Sailor, knocked from boat, rescued 12 hours later
Top Headlines
[08/20]
Sen. Stevens wants trial by day, campaign by night
[08/20]
States push laws to require paid sick days
[08/20]
EPA plans to cite 5 Midwest states for pollution
Tort
[08/19]
NY state firefighters deliver 3 babies in transit
[08/19]
Suit accuses restaurant of giving man big tapeworm
[08/19]
Sailor, knocked from boat, rescued 12 hours later
Case Summaries
Professional Malpractice
[08/15]
US v. Chube
In the prosecution of two doctors for illegitimately prescribing the painkiller OxyContin, convictions for unlawful distribution of controlled substances and defrauding a health benefit program are affirmed, and sentences vacated and remanded, where: 1) the testimony of two physician expert witnesses as to violations of the standards of medical care was properly allowed, and did not go so far as to offer an impermissible opinion on defendants' subjective intent; and 2) under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applicable to judicial findings of relevant conduct during sentencing, the government's evidence did not show that all of defendants' prescribing activities should be included in relevant conduct calculations.
[08/15]
CenTra, Inc. v. Estrin
In a suit against a law firm for damages, alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and legal malpractice, summary judgment for the law firm is reversed where: 1) plaintiff established genuine issues of material fact regarding not only whether it impliedly consented to a conflict of interest, but also whether it could even consent to the conflict in the first instance; and 2) the district court abused its discretion in granting summary judgment prior to discovery.
[08/11]
McIntosh v. Partridge
In a suit by a dentist dismissed from his position at a state-run home after his return from active military duty, summary judgment for defendant-employer is affirmed in part, and vacated with claims dismissed in part, where: 1) no federal jurisdiction existed to hear plaintiff's Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) claim, as a USERRA claim against the state as an employer was required to be brought in state court; 2) evidence considered at the summary judgment phase was admissible; 3) due process claims against defendant-supervisor in his individual capacity failed because plaintiff did not allege a constitutional due-process violation and because supervisor was entitled to a defense of qualified immunity; 4) due process claims against supervisor in his official capacity were barred by sovereign immunity; and 5) a state-law defamation claim was properly dismissed based on defendant-supervisor's official immunity.