Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[02/03] Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co. v. Roberts
In a suit brought by an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that it was required to indemnify its insured for no more than 40 percent of a state court judgment because it had covered its insured for no more than 40 percent of the time in which the state court plaintiff was exposed to lead poisoning, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part, where it was correct in allocating the insurer's liability using the pro-rata time on-the-risk, and its decision to use the plaintiff's date of birth as the starting point for the period in which she was exposed to lead poisoning was sound; and 2) reversed in part, where the district court erred in holding the insurer liable for 24 months of coverage rather than 22, since under the insurance contract, coverage ended when the property was sold.

[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.

[02/01] Maxton v. Western States Metals
In a suit alleging negligence and strict liability causes of action based on personal injuries as a result of working with metal products manufactured by the defendants and supplied to the plaintiff's employer, the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants on demurrers is affirmed, where: 1) the metal products involved were not inherently dangerous, and no other circumstances justified imposing liability on the defendants for the plaintiff's injuries under the component parts doctrine; 2) the plaintiff did not meet his burden of showing there was a reasonable possibility that the deficiencies in the complaint could be cured by amendment.

[01/30] Sennett v. US
In a suit by a photojournalist seeking money damages against the federal government for FBI agents' alleged violations of the Privacy Protection Act (PPA) stemming from a search of her apartment, the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States is affirmed, where: 1) the facts as alleged showed that the officers had probable cause to believe that the plaintiff was involved in criminal activity; and 2) the search of her home related to the investigation of that activity, so that the "suspect exception" to the PPA applied.

Read More

Professional Malpractice

[12/08] Creekmore v. Maryview Hospital
Medical malpractice judgment is affirmed where the plaintiff's expert witness is found to be qualified to testify as to the standard of care under state law because he performs the same procedure in the same context at issue.

[11/15] Khodayari v. Mashburn
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing appellant's tort complaint against his former counsel in postconviction proceedings, judgment is affirmed where the complaints sounds in legal malpractice such that appellant's failure to show actual innocence of the concerned probation violations and to obtain post-violation exoneration of those violations support the trial court's dismissal.

[10/20] Simon v. Usher
In an appeal from a judgment of the appellate division reversing the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to change venue in a medical malpractice action, judgment is reversed where the five-day extension under CPLR 2103(b)(2) applies to the 15-day time period prescribed by CPLR 511(b) when a defendant serves its demand for change of venue by mail.

[10/18] Smith v. Cimmet
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing a legal malpractice action brought by a successive estate representative on the ground that the representative lacked standing because he was never a client of the defendant-attorneys, judgment is reversed where: 1) an Oregon representative lacks capacity to sue in California because his authority does not extend beyond Oregon but may seek relief through an ancillary appointment by the California courts; and 2) under both California and Oregon statutory law, plaintiff has standing to sue attorneys who were retained by his predecessor to act on the estate's behalf.

Read More