Case Summaries
Injury & Tort Law
[12/03] Boim v. Holy Land Found. for Relief and Dev.
In a suit arising from the murder of an American in Israel, alleging that defendants, three organizations and one individual, had provided financial support to Hamas, whose gunmen allegedly committed the murder, and that plaintiffs were entitled to recover against defendants under 18 U.S.C. section 2333(a), judgments against all defendants, and award of treble damages, are affirmed in part and reversed in part by the court sitting en banc where: 1) section 2333 does create tort liability for the financial supporters of terrorist groups targeting Americans outside the U.S.; 2) two of the defendant organizations had not contradicted plaintiffs' evidence on the only material fact at issue, namely that Hamas was responsible for the murder, and were properly held liable under section 2333; but 3) with respect to the third defendant organization, collateral estoppel effect could not be given to a prior order freezing defendant's funds, and remand was necessary for a new determination of whether defendant was knowingly supporting terrorism; and 4) the individual defendant had not rendered material support to Hamas subsequent to the passage of a related criminal statute upon which the tort liability was based, and was not subject to liability.
[12/03] Grissom v. Mills Corp.
In an action against former employer for common law breach of contract, common law defamation per se, and violation of the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), judgment awarding plaintiff-former employee $325,484.08 in attorneys' fees and costs following plaintiff's acceptance of defendant's $130,000 offer of judgment is vacated and remanded where: 1) plaintiff was a "prevailing party" with respect to his SOX whistleblower claim and thus was statutorily eligible for award of attorneys' fees and costs under SOX; 2) the district court erred in awarding plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs accrued after the date of its Rule 68 Offer of Judgment; 3) the district court abused its discretion in basing the Fee Award on the hourly rates requested by plaintiff, without reduction; and 4) the district court erred in finding that "[t]he deadlines imposed by the court required Plaintiff's counsel to work at a faster pace..."
[12/02] Brumfield v. Hollins
In a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit brought by survivors of a man who hung himself while being held in a county jail, summary judgment for individual defendants on qualified-immunity grounds, and directed verdict in favor of defendant-county and individual defendants in their official capacity, are affirmed where: 1) defendant-sheriff was not subject to liability on theories of failure to promulgate policies on medical care or failure to supervise; 2) expert medical testimony was reasonably excluded; and 3) defendant-county was not liable as a municipality on either policy or deliberate-indifference theories.
More...
Legal Malpractice
[11/28] Estate of Storm v. Northwest Iowa Hosp. Corp.
In a negligence case brought by the estate of a stillborn baby, the estate's interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiff failed to timely file the requisite application for permission to appeal in the circuit court, or the equivalent.
[11/28] OFS Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker and Green, P.C.
In an attorney negligence case, district court's final judgment of dismissal is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) jurisdiction did exist over the appeal; 2) the undisputed facts showed plaintiff had substantial justification for its conduct as to its expert report, that the record did not support the district court's willful-delay determination as to that report, and thus the district court abused its discretion in excluding witness' expert testimony; and 3) the district court's choice of sanction was within its range of options under Rule 37(d) and 37(b)(2)(C) given its finding of a complete and willful failure to comply with defendant's Discovery Request.
[11/21] US v. Armstrong
Convictions and sentences of multiple defendants for offenses relating to a scheme to dispense certain controlled substances in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) are affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) expert testimony was not required to establish criminal violation of the CSA on the facts of the case; 2) defendant-registered nurse could be held liable for aiding and abetting under the CSA, even though she was not registered to dispense controlled substances; 3) aiding and abetting convictions could not stand on the CSA counts for which the alleged principal had been acquitted; 4) the jury charge was a correct statement of law; 5) evidence of tax evasion as a motive for under-reporting income was properly admitted; 6) there was sufficient evidence to support a money-laundering conviction; and 7) defendant-physician's sentence was reasonable.
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...
|
