Latest Legal News Headlines

Case Summaries

Attorney's Fees

[03/05] Howard v. St. Germain
In an appeal from the district court's order assessing attorney's fees against defendants based on their improper removal of the case, the order is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in taxing costs and attorney's fees to defendants because an objectively reasonable basis for removal did not exist.

[03/04] Keup v. Hopkins
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action by a prisoner claiming defendant prison personnel prevented plaintiff from sending drawings outside the prison in violation of the First Amendment, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) defendants did not raise their mootness or exhaustion defenses at trial; and 2) because the district court directed a verdict for plaintiff, he was the prevailing party. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, when a prisoner plaintiff only receives nominal damages of $1.00, 42 U.S.C. section 1997e(d)(2) caps attorney fees at $1.50.

[02/25] Donahue v. Donahue
Trial court's order, charging a trust with some $5 million in past and ongoing attorney fees incurred on behalf of a former trustee in defending against the beneficiary's allegations of self-dealing and conflict of interest is reversed as it cannot be determined from the trial court's order whether the fee awards are consistent with applicable legal principles. Long-established principles of trust law impose a double-barreled reasonableness requirement where: 1) the fee award must be reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation; and 2) it also must be reasonable and appropriate for the benefit of the trust.

[02/25] Pellegrino v. Robert Half Int'l
In plaintiffs' action against their former employer, a temporary staffing firm, for hour and wage violations, trial court's award of plaintiffs' attorneys fees' is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the court did not err by reducing the lodestar amount by no more than 15 percent to reflect the parties' litigation of the unfair competition claims because the legal and factual issues presented in those claims were interrelated with those issues presented by plaintiffs' wage and hour claims; 2) the record supports the trial court's application of a 1.75 multiplier to the reduced lodestar amount for attorney fees generated up until plaintiffs brought their motion for attorney fees based on the factors set forth in Ketchum; and 3) the record does not support trial court's application of a 1.75 multiplier to fees incurred in bringing the motion for attorney fees.

[02/22] City of Waco v. Kelley
In an action by an assistant chief of police challenging his indefinite suspension for being arrested and charged with drunk-driving in another city, the judgment of the hearing examiner is reversed and remanded where: 1) although the hearing examiner did not exceed his jurisdiction by reducing the indefinite suspension, he exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering a 180-day suspension, as the Civil Service Act does not authorize a hearing examiner to impose a temporary suspension of more than 15 days; 2) the hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering back pay and benefits to the extent they were awarded for any time during which the assistant chief was suspended; 3) the hearing examiner exceeded his jurisdiction by demoting the chief assistant; and 4) the court of appeals erred in affirming assistant chief's award of attorneys' fees.

[02/18] US v. Thouvenot, Wade & Moerschen, Inc.
In a consolidated appeal, requiring interpretation of the Equal Access to Justice Act involving the issue of whether the government's position was substantially justified, district court's judgment is reversed in two cases and affirmed in the last case where: 1) in the case against a project site engineer, the government had a substantial though not winning case, and therefore plaintiff failed to establish its right to an award; 2) in the second case involving social security disability benefits, district court's denial of fees to the prevailing claimant is reversed as government's position was not substantially justified; and 3) district court's reversal of ALJ's denial of plaintiff's disability benefits but denial of his fees is affirmed as the district judge was persuaded that the agency's position had been substantially justified.

[02/18] Rodriguez v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C.
In an appeal from the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees after an infant compromise hearing, the award is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in looking beyond the retainer agreement between plaintiffs and their attorneys to the actual work performed by the various attorneys; and 2) the district court did not err in determining that appellant-attorneys did not obtain informed consent from the client for the fee-sharing agreement.

More...

Evidence

[03/12] US v. McMillan
Defendant's wire and mail fraud convictions and sentences are affirmed where: 1) the superseding indictment did not broaden the charges against the defendants; 2) Cleveland's requirement that the object of the fraud be actual money or property in the hands of the victim was satisfied; 3) the district court gave an immediate curative instruction, in response to objections during the prosecutor's closing remarks, that the government bore the burden of proof and the defendants need not testify or prove anything; and 4) the district court did not clearly err by finding that defendants' business would have suffered catastrophic losses had it been closed rather then permitted to continue in operation and that the amount of loss attributable solely to the defendants could not be reasonably calculated.

[03/12] US v. Jackson
Conviction of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentence to 120 months' imprisonment are affirmed where: 1) the officer had a reasonable basis for believing that defendant's mother had the authority to consent to the search of his computer and the computer case; 2) district court properly concluded that the officer did not exceed the scope of the mother's consent; 3) the district court did not err in denying defendant's request to raise an "innocent possession" defense; and 4) district court appropriately rejected defendant's section 5K2.11 argument and imposed a sentence that was reasonable.

[03/12] Parker v. Astrue
In a consolidated appeal in two social security disability cases, decisions of the district courts affirming the denial of benefits to petitioners are reversed and remanded as an administrative decision that fails to mention highly pertinent evidence cannot be upheld.

[03/12] US v. DeAndrade
Defendant's drug conspiracy conviction and sentence are affirmed where: 1) a brief and fleeting comment on the defendant's incarceration during trial, without more, did not impair the presumption of innocence to such an extent that a mistrial is required; 2) the government never relied upon certain challenged testimony, and a curative instruction could easily have done more harm than good by focusing the jurors on two allusive references that they otherwise might have missed or construed as innocuous; and 3) defendant's sentence was unaffected by his juvenile drug offense.

[03/11] People v. Concha
Conviction of defendants for first degree murder for the killing of their accomplice by the intended victim is affirmed as, although the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that "for a defendant to be found guilty of first degree murder, he personally had to have acted willfully, deliberately and with premeditation when he committed the attempted murder," the instructional error was harmless as a rational jury would have found it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant personally premeditated and deliberated the attempted murder.

[03/11] Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against his employer in violations of the Federal Employer's Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Ac, claiming that he developed "tennis elbow" as a result of having to manipulate defective controls in the cabin of his locomotive, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's claim was not time barred, had defendant chosen to contest this showing by asking the jury instruction and arguing the matter to the jury; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a doctor as an expert on the issue of causation; 3) brief statements by a witness as to the contents of a letter was harmless error; and 4) plaintiff's counsel's statements in closing arguments were adequately dealt with by the district judge's instructions and no plain error occurred.

[03/11] US v. Mejia
Defendant's conviction and sentence for conspiring to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime are affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress his incriminating statements; 2) defendant's evidentiary claims are rejected as there was no abuse of discretion in admitting any of the evidence; and 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/12] Holschen v. Int'l. Union of Painters
In an action by a former union painter against the union alleging several violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), as well as a state law claim for intentional interference with a valid business expectancy, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) this was not a situation where the circumstances themselves presented a significant danger of bias such that plaintiff was excused from presenting at least some evidence of actual bias involving one or more trial board members in order to survive summary judgment; 2) evidence of ad hoc retaliation by an individual union member did not state a cause of action for a free speech violation under the LMRDA; and 3) there was no evidence the union itself formally disciplined plaintiff in retaliation for his exercise of free speech rights.

[03/12] Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., Inc.
In plaintiff-insurers' action seeking reimbursement for their settlement contribution against its insured arising from an underlying lawsuit for antitrust violation and tortious interference with contract and with other business relations, district court's judgment is affirmed in its entirety where: 1) Kentucky will allow reimbursement for an insurer after a unilateral reservation of rights by the insurer over the objection of the insured in at least the narrow circumstances posed in this case and in cases such as Blue Ridge; 2) the district court did not err in finding that disparagement was not part of the underlying litigation at the time of the settlement, and thus, plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of the settlement funds paid on behalf of the defendant; 3) the district court was correct in determining that plaintiff's duty to defend was triggered on November 8, 1999, the date the First Amended Complaint was docketed; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the damages and pre-judgment interest awarded.

[03/12] Alexander v. Cahill
In a First Amendment challenge to attorney advertising rules issued by the New York Appellate Division barring, inter alia, testimonials from clients relating to pending matters, portrayals of judges or fictitious law firms, attention-getting techniques unrelated to attorney competence, and trade names or nicknames that imply an ability to get results, and establishing a thirty-day moratorium for targeted solicitation following a specific incident, including targeted ads on television or in other media, summary judgment order invalidating most of the content-based restrictions and upholding the thirty-day moratorium is affirmed in part where the content-based restrictions in the disputed provisions regulated commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the prohibition on advertising mentioning fictitious firms was valid because it targeted potentially misleading advertising; and 2) as to the moratorium, there was a substantial state interest in protecting the privacy and tranquility of personal injury victims and their loved ones against intrusive, unsolicited contact by lawyers.

[03/11] Freedman v. Brutzkus
In plaintiff's action for fraud against defendants, trial court's dismissal of the action following the sustaining of defendants' demurrer is affirmed as a signature of an attorney under the legend "approved as to form and content" on a contract does not amount to an actionable representation to an opposing party's attorney that can provide a basis for tort liability.

[03/11] Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against his employer in violations of the Federal Employer's Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Ac, claiming that he developed "tennis elbow" as a result of having to manipulate defective controls in the cabin of his locomotive, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's claim was not time barred, had defendant chosen to contest this showing by asking the jury instruction and arguing the matter to the jury; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a doctor as an expert on the issue of causation; 3) brief statements by a witness as to the contents of a letter was harmless error; and 4) plaintiff's counsel's statements in closing arguments were adequately dealt with by the district judge's instructions and no plain error occurred.

[03/11] Griswold v. Cty. of Hillsborough
In an action by plaintiff, a disabled veteran, claiming that defendants violated his rights under the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 by interfering with plaintiff's businesses' ability to obtain certain government contracts, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff's claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata due to earlier litigation brought by plaintiff's companies arising from the same facts.

[03/11] Rehberg v. Paulk
In an action for malicious prosecution, retaliatory investigation and prosecution, and evidence fabrication, a denial of defendants' motion to dismiss based on absolute and qualified immunity is affirmed in part where plaintiff sufficiently alleged the requisite retaliatory motive, absence of probable cause, and but-for causation to state a retaliatory prosecution claim. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) even if defendants knew one defendant's testimony before a grand jury was false, they still received absolute immunity for the act of testifying to the grand jury; and 2) plaintiff's voluntary delivery of emails to third parties constituted a voluntary relinquishment of the right to privacy in that information.

More...

Insurance Law

[03/12] Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., Inc.
In plaintiff-insurers' action seeking reimbursement for their settlement contribution against its insured arising from an underlying lawsuit for antitrust violation and tortious interference with contract and with other business relations, district court's judgment is affirmed in its entirety where: 1) Kentucky will allow reimbursement for an insurer after a unilateral reservation of rights by the insurer over the objection of the insured in at least the narrow circumstances posed in this case and in cases such as Blue Ridge; 2) the district court did not err in finding that disparagement was not part of the underlying litigation at the time of the settlement, and thus, plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of the settlement funds paid on behalf of the defendant; 3) the district court was correct in determining that plaintiff's duty to defend was triggered on November 8, 1999, the date the First Amended Complaint was docketed; and 4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the damages and pre-judgment interest awarded.

[03/10] Darvell v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
In an ERISA action regarding defendant-insurer's denial of long-term disability benefits to plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) it was not an abuse of an ERISA plan administrator's discretion to ignore an opinion when the physician did not provide reliable objective evidence of testing or other proof to support a finding of long term disability; and 2) the plan administrator did not abuse its discretion by using the DOT description of plaintiff's occupation, rather than a description of his actual job duties.

[03/10] Abdelhamid v. Fire Ins. Exch.
In homeowner's action against her insurance company after it denied coverage to her for the fire that burned her house down, summary judgment in favor of the insurance company is affirmed as the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on the breach of contract claim as plaintiff's failure to comply constituted material breach of her contractual duties.

[03/10] Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Century Surety Co.
In an action against defendant-insurance company seeking equitable contribution based on defendant's failure to participate in the defense of 17 common insureds in hundreds of actions in which plaintiff and another insurer shared the costs of the defense, judgment of the trial court determining the equitable contribution is reversed as it was in conflict with the general rule (now to be applicable in insurance cases) that, in order to be entitled to equitable contribution, a party must have first paid more than its share of the loss and it bears the burden of proving such circumstance.

[03/10] Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist. v. American Int'l Specilaty Lines Ins. Co.
In a sewerage district's suit for damages against an environmental liability insurer for denying coverage for costs incurred by the district in removing significant pollution on land it recently purchased, district court's judgment is reversed and remanded as the district court's finding that there was clear and convincing proof that a prior agreement existed between the insurance company and the sewerage district that the parcel would be covered property was clearly erroneous. Therefore, defendant is entitled to judgment on the sewerage district's reformation claim and, as a consequence, judgment in favor of defendant on its indemnity claim is vacated.

[03/10] Fortis Corp. Ins. SA. v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS
In a maritime shipping case involving a claim for rust damage to steel coils caused by exposure to seawater during a journey from Poland to Ohio, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) a ship manager charged with providing a Master, officers and crew, and performing various other ship-management tasks for the shipping vessel does not qualify as a "carrier" under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and thus the COGSA's one year-statute of limitations does not bar the underlying suit; and 2) defendant's claim that the district court's finding of negligence was based on clearly erroneous factual findings is rejected.

[03/09] Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

More...