FDCC
Connect with Us
     
Hot Cases Search
Category: You may select multiple categories to search. Results will display documents that are in all categories selected.
All Categories Alternate Dispute Resolution
Business Torts and Commercial Litigation Construction, Fidelity, Surety and Public Contract
Employment Litigation and Civil Rights Ethics and Professionalism
Excess and Surplus Lines Extra Contractual Liability
Good of the Order Insurance Coverage
Insurance Industry Intellectual Property
International Practice and Law Life, Health & Disability
Management, Economics & Technology of Practice Medical Malpractice
Pharmaceutical Litigation Premises Liability
Products Liability Professional Liability
Property Insurance Reinsurance
Technology and E-Commerce Toxic Tort and Environmental Law
Transportation Trial Tactics, Practice and Procedures
Workers Compensation
Keyword: Court:

07/01/2015
Scott Rudlaff, PR of the Estate of Lawrence Carpenter v. Brandon Gillispie; Jacob Bielski,
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Reverses Denial of Summary Judgment to Police Officers That Allegedly Used Excessive Force
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

This case involved the alleged excessive use of force by two county police officers.  Plaintiff was well known to the officers: he had been stopped on three prior occasions for driving with a suspended license and often was “physical&rd

Submitted by: D. Jay Davis, Jr. and J. Camden Hodge of Young Clement Rivers, LLP - Posted: 07/02/2015
06/29/2015
Danny Ray Marks, Jr. v. Timothy B. Johnson v. Scottsdale Ins. Co
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Insurance Company Had No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Plaintiff in Underlying Negligence Suit
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Defendant Johnson, a member of a hunt club (the “Club”), was hunting deer on land leased by the Club and adjacent to a highway in Richmond County, VA.  Johnson shot at a deer and pellets from the shot traveled toward the highway a

Submitted by: D. Jay Davis, Jr. and J. Camden Hodge of Young Clement Rivers, LLP - Posted: 06/30/2015
06/29/2015
Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. v. State Farm Lloyds,
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Holds that State Farm Had No Duty to Defend Trademark Infringement Claim
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Test Masters Educational Services, Inc. (“TES”) filed suit against State Farm, seeking a declaratory judgment that State Farm owed TES a duty to defend.  The underlying suit involved claims made by TES against Robin Singh Educatio

Submitted by: D. Jay Davis, Jr. and J. Camden Hodge of Young Clement Rivers, LLP - Posted: 06/30/2015
06/15/2015
Coats v. Dish Network LLC
Employers Do Not Have to Accommodate Medical Marijuana Use, Even in Colorado
Colorado Supreme Court

The Colorado State Supreme Court has unanimously upheld an employer’s discharge of an employee who failed a random workplace drug test due to his off-duty use of medical marijuana.   The employee, who is a paraplegic, had a medical

Submitted by: Michele Ballard Miller and Carolyn Rashby, Miller Law Group - Posted: 06/21/2015
06/12/2015
Teamsters Local Union No. 117 v. Washington Department of Corrections
Court Holds that Sex Was BFOQ for Womens’ Prison Guard Positions
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Washington Department of Corrections’ decision to restrict 110 correctional officer posts in its two women’s prisons to female correctional officers, rebuffing a challenge by a prison

Submitted by: William F. Murphy, Dillingham & Murphy LLP - Posted: 06/21/2015
06/05/2015
DES MOINES AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY et al v. ARBREINA YOUNG
Workers’ compensation claimant sought reimbursement of IME expenses outside of statute providing for reimbursement of same.
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

In this workers’ compensation case, the sole issue was whether Iowa Code § 85.39 provides the exclusive method for reimbursement of an independent medical examination (“IME”) obtained by a claimant or if the workers’ c

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Jared S. Renfroe; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/15/2015
06/05/2015
BERENT v. CMH HOMES, INC. et al.
The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted permission to appeal to determine whether the ruling in Taylor v. Butler, 142 S.W.3d 277 (2004) was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) under the reasoning of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

Plaintiff purchased a mobile home from Defendant, executing an adhesion purchase contract that contained an arbitration provision requiring both parties to submit disputes to arbitration unless the dispute is a small claim, but the provision reser

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Jared S. Renfroe; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/15/2015
06/05/2015
WILES v. AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF COLUMBUS (AFLAC)
Plaintiff sued his insurance carrier seeking coverage related to a motor vehicle accident after the insurer denied the claim based on the policy’s intoxication exclusion. The case focuses primarily on evidentiary issues relating to admissibility of a toxicology report and also regarding whether the insurer’s investigation was so improper as to support an award for attorneys’ fees in favor of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff sustained severe injuries in a one-car motor vehicle accident after his vehicle left the roadway around a curve, and he admitted that he had been speeding and also drinking alcohol prior to driving. Plaintiff filed a claim for benefits w

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Jared S. Renfroe; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/15/2015
06/05/2015
PETERSON et al. v. GARLAND P. FERRELL, III, d/b/a 4L GRAZING, LLC
Three individual Plaintiffs sued for breach of several grazing contracts, and the trial court held in their favor and awarded damages. On appeal, one of the Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed due to lack of standing. The parties appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas.
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS

Three individual Plaintiffs sued Defendant for breach of numerous grazing contracts while Plaintiffs’ cattle were on Defendant’s pastures. After a bench trial, the trial court found that Defendant had breached the contracts and awarded

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Jared S. Renfroe; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/15/2015
06/05/2015
ACOSTA V. TRINITY BANK
Acosta filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its order granting Trinity Bank’s motion to strike Acosta’s jury demand. After considering the policy favoring the right to trial by jury, as well as the specific documents at issue, the Supreme Court of Alabama granted the petition and issued the writ.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

Sergio Acosta (“Acosta”) and Trinity Bank (“Bank”) had entered into several agreements, including unsecured and secured notes (“Notes”), four Assignments of Rents and Leases (“Assignments”), and mort

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Jared S. Renfroe; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/15/2015
06/05/2015
J. DON GORDON CONSTRUCTION, INC. et al v. BROWN et al
This case involves a dispute between a construction company and an individual Plaintiff, along with two legal entities formed by Plaintiff, over a breach of contract. The parties submitted to arbitration which resulted in an award in favor of Plaintiff, and Defendants appealed, citing various reasons that the arbitration award should be overturned. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial court’s judgment which adopted the arbitration award.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

Brown (“Plaintiff”) sued J. Don Gordon Construction, Inc. and Western Surety (“Defendants”) for breach of contract relating to the construction of a veterinary clinic. Brown had formed two entities for the clinic, Rankin An

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Jared S. Renfroe; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/15/2015
06/05/2015
TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INS. CO. V. CASTELLANOS
The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to determine the burden of proof on summary judgment as between the insured plaintiff and the UM carrier, where the UM carrier has denied coverage based on a claim that the at-fault driver was not “uninsured” as defined by the UM policy because the driver’s liability carrier had not “legally denied” coverage.
SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA

After a motor vehicle accident in which Luis Castellanos (“Castellanos”) was injured, he sued the other driver, Jose Santiago (“Santiago”). In the tort suit, Santiago was defended by his insurer, United Automobile Insurance

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Jared S. Renfroe; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/15/2015
06/05/2015
MINTZ v. CATERPILLAR INC.
Plaintiff filed a case against his employer for alleged race discrimination and retaliation, and Defendant was granted summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed the judgment of the district court.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Plaintiff sued his employer alleging claims of race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII after receiving negative performance reviews which resulted in a decrease in bonuses that he received, and Defendant sought summary judgme

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Jared S. Renfroe; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/15/2015
06/05/2015
SAM K. V. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in an action brought by a disabled student pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The State had tacitly consented to the student’s placement, rendering it bilateral and therefore entitling the student’s parents to reimbursement for costs of a private school program.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In an action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) brought by a disabled student, the Court found the student’s placement was bilateral because the State of Hawaii Department of Education tacitly consented to the stude

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Haley E. Moody; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/15/2015
06/05/2015
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION OF RHODE ISLAND V. CHARLESGATE NURSING CENTER, L.P., ET AL.
In litigation presenting a novel legal question regarding an insurance coverage dispute, the Court found a duty to defend existed when the facts alleged constituted an “occurrence” according to the terms of the policy. The Superior Court denied the motion for summary judgment of the Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Rhode Island, and the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND

This case presented a novel legal question to the Court arising from an insurance coverage dispute.  The plaintiff, Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association of Rhode Island (JUA), sought a declaratory judgment from the Superior Cour

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Haley E. Moody; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/15/2015
06/05/2015
SOUTH COUNTY POST & BEAM, INC. V. BRIAN T. MCMAHON ET AL.
In a dispute regarding payment between landowners and a subcontractor, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court that the plaintiff subcontractor could recover in its unjust enrichment claim but vacated the order of the Superior Court granting costs to the plaintiff for expert witness fees.
SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND

In litigation arising out of an escalated billing dispute between property owners and a subcontractor hired to help construct a house, the Defendants engaged several construction companies to contribute to the project of building a house and barn

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Haley E. Moody; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/15/2015
06/04/2015
IN TOUCH CONCEPTS, INC. d/b/a ZCOM v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS et al.
Plaintiff appealed the district court’s granting of Defendants’ motions to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims, because their Amended Complaint alleged no federal claims, no class-action claims, and there was no complete diversity, but because the case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court, the federal court jurisdiction was not defeated.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

A putative class of all present and former sales agents of Verizon, including Zcom, filed an action in New York state court alleging state-law class-action claims for tortious interference, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. The original Compla

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Jared S. Renfroe; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/08/2015
06/04/2015
THOMAS v. JOHNSON
Plaintiff appealed after district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Title VII claims, arguing that the reason for his termination was false or unworthy of credence because he was truthful at all times, and also arguing that he presented evidence of disparate treatment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding.
United States Court Of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Plaintiff, a probationary Border Patrol agent, was involved in an incident in which probationary agents, or interns, were injured during physical training exercises, and the incident was investigated as possible hazing. Plaintiff provided a writte

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Jared S. Renfroe; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/08/2015
06/04/2015
PETERSON V. BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC.
Plaintiff sued his former employer for age discrimination under federal law and state law, and the federal law claim was dismissed, but the state law claim went to trial, which resulted in a judgment in which Plaintiff received nothing. Both parties appealed, and the primary issue discussed was whether the district court’s granting of injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees in favor of Plaintiff were proper. The Fifth Circuit held in favor of Defendant.
United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

After losing his job during a reduction-in-force (“RIF”), Plaintiff sued his employer, Defendant, for age discrimination under the federal ADEA statute (29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1)), and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Jared S. Renfroe; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/09/2015
06/04/2015
MICHAEL STERN V. ST. ANTHONY’S HEALTH CENTER
In an action brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employee of a health center failed to create an issue of fact as to whether he was a “qualified individual” at the time of his termination, and the judgment of the district court was affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Defendant St. Anthony’s Health Center (SAHC) fired Michael Stern after a neutral evaluator opined Dr. Stern’s short-term memory deficiencies rendered him unfit for duty as SAHC’s Chief Psychologist.  Dr. Stern brought suit u

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Haley E. Moody; Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/09/2015
06/03/2015
SPARKLE HILL, INC. AND WILLIAM WARMING, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS V. INTERSTATE MAT CORPORATION
Plaintiffs, a corporation and its vice-president/owner, appealed District Court’s decision granting summary judgment for the defendant. The First Circuit granted petition for review and affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which granted summary judgment.
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Plaintiffs brought suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227against the defendant, a four-employee corporation, after defendant hired a marketing firm to send advertisements via facsimile to some 10,000 potential custo

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Andrew J. Godbold, Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/04/2015
06/03/2015
MINDY BACKER, BY HER GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND GAY LEE FREEDMAN AND FANNIE MAE WILLIAMS, BY HER GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND UNITED GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES, ANNIE L. KELLY, BY HER GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND UNITED GUARDIANSHIP SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED V. NIRAV R. SHAH, M.D., M.P.H., IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
Plaintiff, an incapacitated nursing home resident whose daughter served as her guardian, appealed District Court’s decision dismissing her claims. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Plaintiff asserted a Section 1983 violation, claiming that the New York State Department of Health (“DOH”) violated the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., when DOH determined that guardianship fees approved by a state court c

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Andrew J. Godbold, Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/04/2015
06/03/2015
PAULETTE M. CHARLES V. JOHN M. MCHUGH, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY
Plaintiff brings action to rescind settlement agreement regarding employment discrimination claims, alleging that settlement was coerced by Army. The district court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds. The Fifth Circuit granted the petition for review and affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Plaintiff alleges that she suffered employment discrimination on the basis of sex and race in violation of Title VII.  She filed a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) but settled her c

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Andrew J. Godbold, Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/04/2015
06/03/2015
SANDUSKY WELLNESS CENTER, LLC, AN OHIO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS V. MEDCO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.
Plaintiffs appealed District Court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendant, a pharmacy benefit manager. Plaintiff sued defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act claiming that medication information included in facsimiles constituted unsolicited advertisements. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Plaintiff, a chiropractic company, received facsimile messages from Defendant, a pharmacy benefit manager.  As a pharmacy benefit manager, Defendant was tasked with keeping an updated list of medicines approved by healthcare plans.  Defe

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Andrew J. Godbold, Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/04/2015
06/03/2015
DURUKAN AMERICA, LLC V. RAIN TRADING, INC.
Defendant wholesaler appeals ruling of District Court denying its motion to vacate default judgment one year after judgment entered, arguing that it was never served. The Seventh Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and remanded for further proceedings.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Plaintiff candy maker sued a wholesaler and its president for breach of contract, among other things.  Plaintiff was awarded a default judgment after Defendant failed to file an Answer.  Defendant moved to vacate the judgment, claiming s

Submitted by: Marc H. Harwell & Andrew J. Godbold, Leitner, Williams, Dooley & Napolitan, PLLC - Posted: 06/04/2015
05/26/2015
Higgin-Williams v. Sutter Medical Foundation
Stress Caused by a Supervisor’s Standard Oversight of Job Performance Is Not a “Disability”
California Court of Appeal (Third District)

The Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal has ruled that an employee’s inability to work under a particular supervisor because it causes stress and anxiety is not a FEHA-recognized disability.  The Plaintiff worked

Submitted by: Michele Ballard Miller and Jocelyn Chan, Miller Law Group - Posted: 06/21/2015

 

Quick Links

About Us


Member Directory


Meetings & Events

2016 Winter Meeting


Media Room
 
Search Site



 
Member Login
Forgotten Password? Click Here.
Pay Your Dues Online

11812 North 56th Street, Tampa, FL 33617   l  Phone: 813-983-0022 

© 2014  Federation of Defense & Corporate Counsel, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.