Case Summaries

Criminal Law & Procedure

[02/08] US v. Schneider
In a prosecution for impermissibly dispensing controlled drugs, an order excluding evidence of all but one of the eighteen deaths charged in one count of the indictment and the court's placement of a ten-day limitation on the government's time to present its case is vacated where the district court's ruling effectively dismissed separately charged conduct brought by the government against defendants, and thus impermissibly intruded upon the authority of the executive branch to design a criminal prosecution in the way it deemed most prudent.

[02/08] US v. Xiong
Defendant's convictions for arson, mail fraud, conspiracy to commit arson and mail fraud, and the use of fire to commit another felony, arising from his burning down his mother's supermarket to help her collect insurance money, are affirmed as, under the Blockburger combination approach, Congress intended separate punishments for defendant's convicted offenses.

[02/08] US v. Goodpasture
District court's imposition of a 180 month sentence, as an armed career criminal, on a defendant convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm is reversed and remanded as a California offense of a lewd or lascivious act involving a person under the age of 14 is not a violent felony and as such, the 15 year minimum sentence for an armed career criminal does not apply.

[02/08] US v. Patterson
Defendant's sentence for possessing a counterfeit state security is affirmed where: 1) it was not error for the district court to sentence defendant under a Sentencing Guidelines calculation of intended loss that was more than double the amount of restitution ordered in the same case; and 2) the record was not sufficiently developed to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and a collateral attack is the preferable avenue for such challenges.

[02/08] Arnold v. Sec'y. Dep't of Corr.
In the government's appeal from the grant of petitioner's habeas petition, the grant of the petition is affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court.

[01/14] State of Florida v. Nelson
In a conviction of a juvenile defendant for burglary and related crime, the decision of the Fourth District is quashed and remanded as, when the State is entitled to the recapture period, a continuance that is chargeable to the defense and made after the expiration of the speedy trial period but before a defendant files a notice expiration waives a defendant's speedy trial rights under the default period of the rule.

[01/14] Johnson v. State of Florida
Defendant's request for postconviction relief is granted and the death sentences vacated and remanded where the newly disclosed evidence shows the following: 1) after defendant was arrested and counsel was appointed, the State intentionally created a situation likely to induce defendant to make incriminating statements to a jailhouse informant in violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel; 2) although the prosecutor at defendant's first trial knew that his statements were impermissibly elicited and that his testimony was inadmissible, the prosecutor knowingly used false testimony and misleading argument to convince the court to admit the testimony; and 3) because defendant's testimony was admitted and later used by a different prosecutor at defendant's 1988 trial, and because the State has failed to show that this error did not contribute to the jury's advisory sentences of death, the death sentences are vacated and remanded under Giglio v. US.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[02/08] Yokoyama v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
In an action alleging deceptive representations in defendant's brochures, which promoted certain annuities as appropriate for seniors, a denial of class certification is reversed where the Hawaii Deceptive Practices Act did not require individual showings of reliance on the alleged misrepresentations.

[02/05] Villano v. Waterman Convalescent Hosp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against a convalescent hospital claiming she was admitted without her consent, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where, although a stipulated judgment is appealable, plaintiff cannot show that allegedly erroneous rulings were prejudicial.

[01/15] In re United Scaffolding, Inc.
In plaintiff's action for damages he suffered when he fell from a scaffolding unit built by the defendant company, trial court abused its discretion by disregarding a jury verdict and granting new trial when the reason it gave for doing so was "in the interest of justice and fairness."

[01/14] Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Admin. Hearings
In a consolidated medical malpractice action, involving the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan established by the legislature, the decision by the Second District is quashed and remanded where, in order to satisfy the notice requirement of section 766.316, Florida Statutes, both participating physicians and hospitals with participating physicians on staff must provide obstetrical patients with notice of their participating in the plan.

[12/11] Whirlpool Corp. v. Camacho
In a products liability action against Whirlpool Corporation, judgment of the court of appeals' that a design defect in an electric Whirlpool clothes dryer caused a fatal fire is reversed as the expert testimony of design defect is legally insufficient to support the verdict.

[12/11] Metro Allied Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Lin
In plaintiff's action against an insurance company for negligence and a violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for failure to procure a commercial general liability (CGL) policy, the judgment of the court of appeals in favor of the plaintiff is reversed and remanded is the causation standard for a claimed failure to procure insurance under a negligence theory and under the DTPA requires proof of the availability of some insurance that would have covered the plaintiff's damages.

[12/11] D.R. Horton-Texas, Ltd. v. Markel Int'l Ins. Co., Ltd.
In an action brought by a general contractor seeking a defense and coverage from the commercial general liability insurer for alleged construction defects, judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the duty to indemnify is not dependent on the duty to defend and an insurer may have a duty to indemnify its insured even if the duty to defend never arises; and 2) in determining coverage, a matter dependent on the facts and circumstances of the alleged injury-causing event, parties may introduce evidence during coverage litigation to establish or refute the duty to indemnify.

More...

Commercial Law

[02/05] Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dammann & Co., Inc.
In plaintiff-insurer's action seeking a declaration in federal court that it was not obligated to cover any claims asserted against its insured, a raw food producer, by a manufacturer, denial of manufacturer's motion to leave to assert various crossclaims against the insured is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the manufacturer's request with respect to the products liability claim as the New Jersey Supreme Court predictably would hold that the product liability crossclaim for what is clearly economic loss sounds in contract is therefore barred by the economic loss doctrine; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the manufacturer's request for leave to assert an express indemnification crossclaim; and 3) district court's holding that the manufacturer failed to state an implied indemnification claim for third-party damages is affirmed.

[02/05] Sharabianlou v. Karp
In plaintiff's action seeking rescission of a commercial real estate transaction and tort damages, the portion of the trial court's judgment awarding damages to the original property owners is reversed as the trial court's award goes well beyond the types of damages permitted.

[02/04] Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Beazer Homes Inv., LLC
In plaintiff-insurance company's declaratory-judgment action to establish that it was not obligated to cover the costs that defendant incurred in repairing water damage to several houses that defendant had built as a general contractor, grant of 's judgment on the pleadings is affirmed where: 1) collateral estoppel is not applicable to the case and plaintiff is free to contest whether the policies cover the costs that defendant incurred; 2) a general contractor cannot claim CGL insurance coverage for the costs it incurs in repairing houses that are subsequently damaged due to the faulty workmanship of its own subcontractors; and 3) the district court's consideration of an alleged fungus exclusion was harmless.

[02/03] Homeland Training Center, LLC. v. Summit Point Auto. Research Center
In an action for breach of contract, district court's holding that the original decision to seek specific performance precluded the non-repudiating party from being able to claim monetary damages is reversed as there is no reason why, as a general matter, a party who initially seeks specific performance cannot later switch his preferred relief to an award of damages in the event that specific performance is rendered impractical or impossible.

[02/03] Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of N.Y.
In a group of billboard owners' First Amendment challenge to provisions of New York City's Zoning Resolution, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the city was not required to adopt the "least restrictive means" of advancing its asserted interests; 2) the city did not violate the protections afforded commercial speech when it distinguished between plaintiffs' signs or billboards and those located on government property; and 3) the New York Constitution did not provide broader protection for commercial speech than the First Amendment.

[01/28] Penzer v. Trans. Ins. Co.
In an insurance coverage dispute over whether, under Florida law, the sending of an unsolicited advertisement by fax, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)is covered by a particular insurance policy provision, the Eleventh Circuit's certification is affirmed as, under Florida law, the language of this insurance provision provides coverage for infringements of the TCPA.

[12/11] Metro Allied Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Lin
In plaintiff's action against an insurance company for negligence and a violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for failure to procure a commercial general liability (CGL) policy, the judgment of the court of appeals in favor of the plaintiff is reversed and remanded is the causation standard for a claimed failure to procure insurance under a negligence theory and under the DTPA requires proof of the availability of some insurance that would have covered the plaintiff's damages.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[02/08] Reget v. City of La Crosse
In plaintiff's constitutional challenge to defendant-city's junk-dealer ordinance requiring him to comply with certain building and safety-code provisions and to fence his outdoor auto storage from the view of his surrounding residential neighbors, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed as plaintiff has not shown that the city has treated him differently than other similarly situated businesses.

[02/05] Sharabianlou v. Karp
In plaintiff's action seeking rescission of a commercial real estate transaction and tort damages, the portion of the trial court's judgment awarding damages to the original property owners is reversed as the trial court's award goes well beyond the types of damages permitted.

[02/04] Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles
In plaintiff's action against a county seeking a tax refund claiming that, when she received a life estate interest in a residence, no change in ownership occurred within the meaning of Article XIII A, section 2(a) of the California Constitution to trigger reassessment, judgment of the court of appeals' is reversed where: 1) under governing statutes, plaintiff had to apply for assessment reduction even though her claim presents a pure question of law; 2) the futility exception to the exhaustion requirement is inapplicable; 3) the county is not estopped from relying on plaintiff's failure to exhaust remedies; and 4) there was a change in ownership within the meaning of Article XIII A, section 2(a).

[02/03] Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of N.Y.
In a group of billboard owners' First Amendment challenge to provisions of New York City's Zoning Resolution, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the city was not required to adopt the "least restrictive means" of advancing its asserted interests; 2) the city did not violate the protections afforded commercial speech when it distinguished between plaintiffs' signs or billboards and those located on government property; and 3) the New York Constitution did not provide broader protection for commercial speech than the First Amendment.

[02/01] Woodlands Park Mgmt., LLC. v. City of E. Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Bd.
Trial court's holding that the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance (RSO), adopted by the citizens of the City of East Palo Alto, permitted recovery of attorney fees by a landlord in successful litigation against the city is reversed as the intent of the electorate was that section 15.A.5 of the RSO authorize the recovery of attorney fees only in civil proceedings between landlords and tenants to enforce their respective rights under the RSO, and no other provision of the RSO provides for an award of fees against the city.

[02/01] Equity Inv. Partners, LP v. Lenz
In an action to foreclose defendants' mortgage and to establish the priority of plaintiff's security interest over a federal tax lien, summary judgment for the IRS is vacated where plaintiff was not required to show that the parties contemplated future execution of a security agreement at the time the loans were issued. Rather, to show past consideration, plaintiff needed to present evidence that the security agreement was executed for the purpose of repaying the loans.

[01/06] Franks Inv. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In a state law possessory action filed by a landowner to preserve a long-existing crossing over railroad tracks, judgment for defendant based on the preemption of plaintiff's claims under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act is reversed where: 1) the dispute did not invoke laws that had the effect of managing or governing, and not merely incidentally affecting, rail transportation; and 2) there was no evidence in the record to permit a finding that the crossings created any unusual interference with the railroad.

More...