Case Summaries
Family Law
Injury & Tort Law
Workers' Comp
Sports Law
Family Law
[11/25]
Tebo v. Tebo
In a suit alleging a civil conspiracy to have plaintiff involuntarily committed for mental treatment, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce evidence to show a agreement between the private and public defendants; 2) there was no factual dispute on the elements of a malicious-prosecution claim; 3) there was no basis for a per se negligence action against defendants-stepsons; 4) no material facts were in dispute as to whether defendants-doctors deprived plaintiff of due-process rights; 5) intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution claims against defendants-doctors were not supported by evidence; and 6) defendants-doctors were entitled to immunity on negligence claims.
[11/25]
In re I.I.
Order terminating mother's parental rights to her children under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is affirmed over claims of error that the juvenile court's finding that the children were adoptable was not supported by substantial evidence because: 1) there was no evidence of any other approved homes that were willing to take the children or children with their characteristics; 2) the children had severe behavioral problems; and 3) the children were part of a large sibling set.
[11/25]
San Mateo County Dept. of Child Support Serv. v. Clark
Order setting aside or vacating paternity judgment pursuant to Family Code section 7645 is reversed and remanded where the order exceeded the court's authority to act under the governing statutory scheme.
More...
Injury & Tort Law
[12/02]
Paul v. Landsafe Flood Determination Inc.
In a suit alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation in an erroneous determination that plaintiffs' home was not located in a flood zone, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where, under Mississippi law, the erroneous flood-zone determination was the kind of professional opinion, developed in the course of a party's business and supplied for the guidance of others in a transaction, on which justifiable and detrimental reliance by a reasonably foreseeable person might be shown to have occurred.
[12/02]
Lawrence v. Graubard Miller
In a suit arising from legal proceedings surrounding the administration of an estate, denial of a motion to dismiss a law firm's petition seeking to compel the payment of legal fees is affirmed where the question of whether the retainer agreement at issue was unenforceable on the basis of unconscionability, either at the time it was entered into or in retrospect, was a factual one that could not be answered at the pre-answer motion stage.
[12/02]
Kopsachilis v. 130 East 18 Owners Corp.
In a negligence action alleging that the owners of an apartment building failed to light a stairwell during a blackout, denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment is reversed where the statutory requirement that lights in fire-stairs be kept burning continuously was not a strict-liability offense, and defendants could assert a "knowledge and consent" defense contained within the statute.
More...
Workers' Comp
[11/21]
Lewis v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a worker's compensation issue concerning whether the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (2005 Schedule) or the previous 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (1997 Schedule) applied to the determination of plaintiff-employee's permanent disability, decision by defendant-appeals board finding that the 2005 Schedule applied is annulled and the matter is remanded where: 1) in accordance with legal precedence, an injured worker's condition need not be permanent and stationary for the section 4660(d) comprehensive medical-legal report or treating physician's report to indicate the existence of permanent disability; and 2) if the existence of a permanent disability was indicated in the doctor's treating physician's report of December 17, 2004, in light of the entire record, then the 1997 Schedule applied.
[11/12]
Pratt v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In a suit against defendant-employer brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act for personal injuries suffered at work, a court order prohibiting defendant-railroad company from compelling plaintiff-employee to attend a medical examination or conducting a disciplinary hearing to terminate plaintiff's employment for refusing to provide it with medical evidence justifying his continued absence from work is affirmed where: 1) the trial court had jurisdiction to prohibit extra-judicial discovery because the civil rules of discovery provide independent authority to grant a protective order for misuse of the discovery process; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding monetary sanctions where the sanctions served not to punish but rather to encourage voluntary compliance with the discovery procedures.
[11/06]
B & D Contracting v. Pearley
In a challenge to the amount of an award of disability benefits pursuant to the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Act, employer's petition for review of the award is denied where employer's per diem payments to claimant were properly classified by the Benefits Review Board as wages, and were required to be included in benefit calculations as such.
More...
Sports Law
[11/25]
Bd. of Supervisors for La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co.
In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees.
[10/28]
Kindrich v. The Long Beach Yacht Club
In a personal injury action for injuries sustained while disembarking from a boat, summary judgment in favor of defendant-yacht club is reversed where: 1) plaintiff-victim was not engaged in the type of sporting event where the doctrine of primary assumption of risk should have been applied; 2) at most, plaintiff may have assumed risks, categorized as secondary assumption of risk, which are subsumed in contributory negligence; and 3) whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent and, if so, how his negligence compares with that of the defendants, if any, are questions of fact to be resolved for the trier of fact.
[09/23]
State of Alaska v. Fed. Subsistence Bd.
In a challenge to a Federal Subsistence Board (FSB) Customary and Traditional use determination (C & T determination) allowing the Chistochina community increased permission to harvest moose under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the FSB's fact finding regarding the Chistochina's use of moose was supported by substantial evidence and took into account specific moose populations; 2) the C & T determination was not arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under the APA.
More...
|
