Case Summaries
Injury & Tort Law
[05/09]
Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold and Easement etc. In an action claiming that plaintiff has lost and is continuing to lose natural gas stored in its Elk Basin Storage Reservoir due to the operation of gas production wells owned by defendants, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the condemnation claim was properly dismissed, but on the ground that it failed to state a claim; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim; and 3) state law claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A natural gas company may not condemn additional property that is not specifically described in its existing certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), even if the natural gas company seeks to acquire such property in order to operate and maintain an existing storage facility.
[05/08]
U.S. v. Harper In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
[05/07]
Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp. In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.
[05/07]
Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc. Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.510, subdivision (c), and the court's inherent authority to control its ministerial officers and other persons connected with a judicial proceeding in furtherance of justice, authorize the court to require a deposition reporter to provide a copy of a deposition transcript to a non-noticing party in a pending action for a reasonable fee which, in the absence of an agreement between the interested parties, may be set by the court upon a proper evidentiary showing.
[05/06]
Hadley v. Gutierrez In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action involving excessive force claims against defendants-police officers, an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment seeking qualified immunity is reversed in part where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to grant one defendant qualified immunity on plaintiff's excessive force claim; and 2) refusing to grant qualified immunity to both defendants on plaintiff's conspiracy claim.
More...
Drugs & Biotech
[05/01]
Amerisource Corp. v. U.S. A ruling that there was no compensable taking in the seizure of an innocent third party's property, which was never introduced as evidence in a criminal proceeding and was rendered worthless over the course of the proceedings, is affirmed where: 1) the government seized the goods pursuant to the police power and not for "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment; and 2) the innocence of the third party did not make the seizure of property under the police power a compensable taking.
[04/29]
In re: Subpoena in Collins In an action against GlaxoSmithKline alleging the drug Paxil radically changed an individual's behavior and led him to take his own life, an order quashing a subpoena commanding a a Smithsonian employee to testify at a deposition is reversed and remanded where the federal government's claim to sovereign immunity does not apply to an employee's personal observations and opinions regarding a co-worker's behavior which are unrelated to the employee's official duties.
[04/24]
Ackermann v. Wyeth Pharm. In case brought plaintiff-wife alleging that defendant failed to adequately warn about drug-induced risk of suicide from its drug Effexor, leading to her husband's suicide, summary judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where plaintiff failed to demonstrate causation under the learned-intermediary doctrine.
[04/18]
Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass'n v. Dist. of Columbia In a suit to block a DC law that would require pharmacy benefit managers to act as fiduciaries, to disclose the content of their contracts with pharmacies and manufacturers, and to pass on any payments or discounts they receive from pharmacies or manufacturers, summary judgment for the District is vacated and remanded where the case involved unmixed questions of law and: 1) application of collateral estoppel would freeze the development of the law in an area of substantial public interest; and 2) the legal context changed subsequent to after the first decision.
[04/14]
BASF AG v. Great Am. Assurance Co. In a suit seeking to recover damages from defendants-insurers for their failure to defend and indemnify plaintiff during a suit over the marketing of a synthetic thyroid drug, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed and remanded where the terms of the insurance policies, as a matter of law, did not obligate the insurers to defend or indemnify plaintiff.
More...
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
|