[11/14]
Retail sales fall by record amount in October
[11/14]
Thanksgiving little blessing for turkey industry
[11/14]
Abercrombie & Fitch 3Q profit falls 46 percent
[11/20]
Dog hits controls, drives van into coffee house
[11/18]
Maine man sheds 140 pounds to join the Marines
[11/12]
W.Va. man beats health insurer in court over $40
[11/20]
U.S. Top Court Won't Review Dismissal of MySpace Rape Case
[11/20]
Defense Department Contract Law Unconstitutional, Court Says
[11/20]
Judge orders release of 5 terror suspects at Gitmo
[11/20]
Dog hits controls, drives van into coffee house
[11/18]
Maine man sheds 140 pounds to join the Marines
[11/12]
W.Va. man beats health insurer in court over $40
[11/14]
In Re Buster
In a suit alleging negligence by a nursing home, in which plaintiff submitted an expert report signed by a nurse, and then sought leave to cure this deficiency by submitting a different report signed by a physician, petition for mandamus relief is granted where the appeals court erred in holding that a new report from a different expert was not allowed.
[11/13]
Mosier v. Callister, Nebeker & McCullough
In a suit brought by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate of a nonprofit organization against a law firm and two of its attorneys alleging professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, vicarious liability, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and civil conspiracy, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err by imputing the conduct of certain offers to the nonprofit; 2) it correctly applied the doctrine of in pari delicto in holding as a matter of law that the nonprofit's misconduct, as evidenced by the actions of its officers and directors, was greater than defendants' fault in failing to counsel the nonprofit; and 3) there was no error in applying the doctrine against a trustee in bankruptcy.
[11/13]
Teague v. Kent Gen. Hosp.
In a medical-malpractice case, denials of plaintiff's motion for a new trial and for reargument of the exclusion of medical expert testimony are affirmed where: 1) defendant made a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law after plaintiff's expert failed on direct examination to establish the relevant standard of care; and 2) the trial judge did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by declining to allow additional voir dire of plaintiff's expert via telephone.
Notice: This website is for advertisement purposes only. Use of this website and information contained herein is not intended to be legal advice and will not establish an attorney-client privilege. Rhode Island does not have a procedure for certification or recognition of specialization for attorneys. If you have any questions or require legal advice, please contact us directly at 401-782-2005.
Copyright © 2008 by Tomassi Law Associates, LLC Personal Injury Representation. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.