No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Latorre, et al. v. Mendez, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely documented or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific legal issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$98.7M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the civil case "Jean, et al. v. Guyger," the family of Botham Jean sued former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger for wrongful death after she fatally shot Jean in his own apartment on September 6, 2018. Guyger, who was off-duty at the time, entered Jean's apartment by mistake, believing it was hers, and shot him, claiming she thought he was an intruder. The jury awarded Jean's family $98.65 million in damages, including approximately $60 million in punitive damages and $38.6 million in compensatory damages. The city of Dallas was initially named in the lawsuit but was dismissed after a federal judge ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the city. The Jean family appealed this decision, seeking to hold the city accountable for alleged inadequate police training. ()

Sources:
fox5atlanta.com

$83.8M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In July 2024, a California jury awarded nearly $84 million in a personal injury case against The Original Mowbray's Tree Service, Inc. and its employee, Jonathan Armando Gonzalez-Varillas. The plaintiffs, Jaime Rodriguez and Ana Lidia Gomez, sustained severe injuries requiring multiple surgeries and extensive rehabilitation after their vehicle was struck by Gonzalez-Varillas, who was driving under the influence of alcohol. The lawsuit alleged that Mowbray's was negligent in hiring, retaining, and supervising Gonzalez-Varillas, as well as in entrusting him with a company vehicle despite his lack of a valid driver's license and prior incidents of misconduct. The jury awarded $49 million in punitive damages against Mowbray's, highlighting the company's egregious conduct. This landmark verdict underscores the importance of corporate responsibility and accountability in preventing such incidents. ()

Sources:
wric.com

$83.3M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In 2019, writer E. Jean Carroll accused former President Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s. She filed a defamation lawsuit after Trump denied the allegations and publicly disparaged her. In May 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. Trump appealed the verdict, but in December 2024, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision. In January 2024, a separate jury awarded Carroll an additional $83.3 million in damages for defamation related to Trump's 2019 statements. Trump's legal team has indicated plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn these verdicts. ()

Sources:
apnews.com

Marcel Brown, an 18-year-old recent high school graduate, was arrested on September 3, 2008, four days after a shooting in a Chicago park that resulted in another teenager's death. Police theorized that Marcel's 15-year-old cousin fired the fatal shot and that Marcel was accountable for driving his cousin to and from the park. After arresting Marcel at his home, police confined him in a windowless room for 34 hours and interrogated him until he made untrue inculpatory statements, which were the sole basis for his first-degree murder conviction and 35-year sentence. The lengthy and intense interrogation was a textbook example of how to make an innocent teenager confess to something he did not do. On July 12, 2018, the State declined to appeal and dropped all charges, leading to Marcel's release after a decade of wrongful imprisonment. In June 2019, Marcel filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Chicago, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. In September 2024, a jury awarded Marcel $50 million, setting a record for the highest amount awarded to a single person in a wrongful conviction case in the U.S.

No State • No Date

In 2013, Scott Winckler was paralyzed after his Suzuki GSX-R motorcycle's brakes failed. Four months later, Suzuki recalled the brakes on this model. Winckler filed a lawsuit against Suzuki, alleging product liability. During discovery, he sought to depose Osamu Suzuki, the company's Chairman, claiming he had unique knowledge about the brake issue. Suzuki opposed this, invoking the "apex doctrine," which protects top executives from depositions unless it's shown they possess unique, relevant information. The trial court granted Winckler's request, finding that the apex doctrine didn't apply in this corporate context and that Osamu Suzuki could provide unique insights. Suzuki appealed, but the appellate court upheld the decision, noting that Florida courts hadn't applied the apex doctrine to corporate officers and that Osamu Suzuki's involvement made his deposition relevant. ()

Sources:
casetext.com

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Hastings v. Velasquez, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, year, or context of the case, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$18.2M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the 1976 case of *Scott v. Watson*, the Maryland Court of Appeals addressed whether landlords have a duty to protect tenants from criminal acts by third parties in common areas under their control. James Aubrey Scott, Jr., a tenant at Sutton Place Apartments in Baltimore, was fatally shot in the building's underground parking garage. Prior to his death, there were numerous reported crimes in and around the apartment complex. Scott's estate sued the landlord, alleging a breach of duty to protect tenants from such criminal acts. The court ruled that landlords are not insurers of tenant safety but must exercise reasonable care in common areas. If a landlord knows or should know of criminal activity in these areas, they have a duty to take reasonable measures to address the issue. This duty arises primarily from criminal activities occurring on the landlord's premises, not from general criminal activity in the surrounding neighborhood. The court emphasized that landlords must take reasonable steps to eliminate conditions contributing to criminal activity within their control. ()

Sources:
lawpipe.com

$18.1M • Personal Injury

CA • 2013-05-16

In the case of Biancalana v. T.D. Service Co., the California Supreme Court addressed the enforceability of a trustee's sale in a nonjudicial foreclosure. The dispute arose when the trustee, T.D. Service Co., conducted a foreclosure sale of a property owned by David Biancalana. Biancalana attended the auction and was the highest bidder, but the trustee later voided the sale, citing an inadequate opening bid. The court examined whether the trustee had the authority to rescind the sale based on the inadequacy of the bid and procedural irregularities. The ruling emphasized that a trustee can void a sale if there is gross inadequacy of price and procedural irregularities, even if the bidder is not prejudiced. This decision clarified the circumstances under which a trustee may exercise discretion to void a foreclosure sale. ()

Sources:
scocal.stanford.edu

$18M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In February 2019, sisters Jennifer Garnier and Angela Toft's mobile home in California was severely damaged by flooding. They promptly filed a claim with their insurer, American Reliable Insurance Company, which initially offered only $5,000, despite repair estimates exceeding $100,000. Over the next four years, the insurer delayed payments, made unfounded fraud allegations, and subjected the sisters to examinations under oath. During this period, the sisters lived in an unsafe, unrepaired home. In 2023, American Reliable paid the policy limit of $140,000. The sisters sued for bad faith, and a California jury awarded them $18 million in damages, citing the insurer's unreasonable conduct and prolonged delays. ()

Sources:
cheapsr22.us

$17.5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a case titled "Vallin v. City of Long Beach." It's possible that the case is not well-documented or may be known under a different name. If you have more details, such as the case number, date, or specific issues involved, please provide them, and I'll be glad to assist you further.

$17.5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In 2003, the City of Hanford enacted a zoning ordinance to protect its downtown commercial district, which was known for its furniture stores. The ordinance prohibited furniture sales in the Planned Commercial (PC) district but allowed large department stores (over 50,000 square feet) to sell furniture in a designated area of up to 2,500 square feet. Adrian and Tracy Hernandez, owners of a smaller furniture store in the PC district, challenged the ordinance, arguing it violated equal protection by favoring larger retailers. The California Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, stating it served legitimate public purposes, such as preserving the downtown district's economic viability and attracting large department stores to the PC district. The court found the ordinance's provisions were rationally related to these objectives and did not violate equal protection principles. ()

Sources:
casetext.com

No State • No Date

I'm unable to locate specific information about the case titled "Injured Plaintiff v. Power Road, Inc., et al." Without reliable details, I cannot provide a summary.

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Haralambou v. Rhein, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, year, or context of the case, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$14.1M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

"Kasnecovic v. Lamm" is a legal case involving Besime Kanacevic, a native of Montenegro, who sought political asylum in the United States. In 1999, at 17, she entered the U.S. using a fraudulent Slovenian passport and claimed she intended to marry Brahim Cekoviq, a Yugoslavian with a green card. Two years later, she applied for asylum, alleging harassment by Serbian soldiers due to her Albanian ethnicity and fearing further persecution if returned to Montenegro. During her asylum hearing, Kanacevic testified about incidents during the Kosovo war, including Serbian soldiers taking her father and others to the police station, where her father was beaten and told to send the Kosovars away. She also recounted being told by Serbian police that all Muslim girls had to die, leading her to hide for about two months. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found her asylum application untimely and questioned her credibility, noting inconsistencies in her testimony regarding her nationality and the timing of her birth certificate submission. Consequently, the IJ denied her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirmed the IJ's decision without opinion. Kanacevic appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the IJ's adverse credibility determination and denied her petition for review. ()

Sources:
law.resource.org

$14M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

Dr. Lauren Pinter-Brown, a former director of the lymphoma program at UCLA's medical center, filed a lawsuit against the University of California Regents, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. She claimed that after raising concerns about harassment by a male colleague, she faced audits, suspension of research privileges, and damage to her professional reputation. Despite filing complaints, UCLA took no significant action, leading to her resignation in 2015. In 2018, a jury awarded her $13 million in damages. However, the California Court of Appeal overturned this verdict in 2020, citing judicial errors during the trial. A retrial commenced in 2024, resulting in a $14 million award in her favor. Additionally, in December 2024, the court ordered the UC Regents to pay $3.9 million in attorney's fees to Dr. Pinter-Brown. (, )

Sources:
dailybruin.com
mynewsla.com

$13.8M • Personal Injury

CA • 2005-01-01

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "CTY Farms, LLC v. ST. Lucie River Farm, LLC." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may not exist. If you have more details or perhaps a different case in mind, please let me know, and I'll be glad to assist further.

$12.2M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of **Gomez-Martinez v. New York City Transit Authority**, the plaintiff, Gomez-Martinez, filed a lawsuit seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in an accident involving a bus operated by the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA). The incident occurred when the bus, driven by Khalid M. Fadlalla, allegedly struck Gomez-Martinez, causing significant injuries. The plaintiff contended that the bus was operating too closely behind him, leading to the collision. In response, the NYCTA and its associated entities filed motions to preclude certain evidence and to dismiss the case. They sought to exclude references to a traffic ticket issued to Mr. Nube, a few days after the accident, for allegedly opening the door of his parked vehicle into traffic. Additionally, the NYCTA defendants aimed to prevent the plaintiff from introducing evidence of NYCTA's internal procedures that were more stringent than the legal requirements and from eliciting opinions of law from any witness or expert. The court addressed these motions, ultimately granting the NYCTA defendants' request to preclude the plaintiff from introducing evidence regarding NYCTA's internal procedures that exceeded the standard legal duty. However, the court denied the motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff's accident reconstruction expert, Mr. Gambardella, finding that his opinions were based on established methodologies and relevant data. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to unify the trial, determining that the nature of the injuries did not significantly impact the liability issues at hand. This case highlights the complexities involved in personal injury lawsuits against public entities like the NYCTA, particularly concerning the admissibility of evidence and the application of internal procedures beyond standard legal obligations.

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Loeser v. Norcal Beverage Co. Inc." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific legal issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$10.3M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In June 2024, a federal jury in Texas awarded SVV Technology Innovations Inc. $10.3 million in damages after finding Acer Inc. guilty of patent infringement. The case centered on four U.S. patents held by SVV, covering LED technology used in monitors. The jury determined that Acer's gaming monitors violated these patents, which are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,838,135; 8,740,397; 10,797,191; and 10,868,205. () SVV's founder, Dr. Sergiy Vasylyev, testified about the company's innovations in optics and lighting. The trial lasted approximately three hours, leading to a swift verdict in favor of SVV. ()

Sources:
news.bloomberglaw.com
prnewswire.com

$10.3M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In March 2024, Pantech Corporation, a South Korean company, sued OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., a Chinese smartphone manufacturer, alleging that OnePlus had willfully infringed on five of Pantech's patents related to wireless communication and user interface technologies used in OnePlus smartphones. After a week-long trial in the Eastern District of Texas, the jury found in favor of Pantech, awarding $10.26 million in damages. The jury determined that OnePlus had knowingly violated Pantech's patents and that the patents were valid. () However, in August 2024, U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder III ruled that the jury's $10 million award was excessive and ordered a new trial to reassess the damages. The judge noted that the original award was more than seven times the amount suggested by Pantech's expert and three times the amount its counsel had sought during the trial. Additionally, the judge found that OnePlus did not infringe on one of the five patents. () As of April 2025, the case was under appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. ()

Sources:
law.com
news.bloomberglaw.com
dockets.justia.com

$10.1M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the 2000 Louisiana case of *Currie v. Myers*, Betty Currie sued Kathleen Myers after an alleged minor car accident in Shreveport. Currie claimed that while stopped at a traffic light, Myers's vehicle struck hers multiple times. However, an investigating officer noted only a minor scuff on Currie's bumper, suggesting a glancing blow. Currie sought damages for aggravation of pre-existing conditions but failed to prove that the accident caused her injuries. The jury found Myers not negligent, and the Louisiana Court of Appeal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the jury reasonably determined that the minor collisions did not lead to Currie's alleged health issues. ()

Sources:
caselaw.findlaw.com

CA • No Date

The case titled "Heng Zhang v. Brendon Farrell" was filed on October 31, 2019, in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, under case number 19-CIV-06457. The nature of the dispute is classified as "Complex Civil Unlimited," indicating a complex civil matter. As of the latest available information, the case status is active, with no specific details about the claims, defenses, or any motions filed. The docket does not provide further insights into the case's developments or the parties' positions.

$8.9M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Dooley, et al. v. Stallion Funding, LLC, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$8.8M • Personal Injury

CA • 2022-03-25

In 2013, Tamara Evans, a Law Enforcement Consultant II at the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), alleged she was terminated in retaliation for reporting misconduct related to grant funding. Evans had overseen federal funding for law enforcement training courses with the San Diego Regional Training Center (SDRTC). She reported to her superiors and the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA) that SDRTC had submitted false invoices for reimbursement. Following these reports, Evans faced adverse employment actions, including reassignment, demotion, and ultimately termination. She filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint, which was consolidated with her appeal of termination. The court found no evidence of fraud or false claims by SDRTC or POST, determining that the invoices were budget-based and both parties were aware of this arrangement. Consequently, Evans's claims were dismissed, and her motion for summary judgment was denied. ()

Sources:
casetext.com

$8.5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *Presha v. The State of Florida*, Trevis Presha was charged with possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. During a police investigation into gunshots fired in the area, officers observed Presha holding a black object, which they suspected to be a firearm. Presha attempted to conceal the object by tossing it into a nearby car. Upon searching the vehicle, officers discovered a black firearm on the floor. Presha, a convicted felon, was subsequently arrested and charged with the firearm possession offense. At trial, Presha's defense argued that the firearm was not his and that he was unaware of its presence in the vehicle. The jury convicted Presha, leading to his appeal on the grounds of insufficient evidence and improper jury instructions. The appellate court upheld the conviction, affirming that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. ()

Sources:
law.justia.com

$8.3M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Dehler v. Yeman, et al." It's possible there might be a typographical error in the case name. Could you please verify the spelling or provide additional details? This will help me assist you more effectively.

$7.5M • Personal Injury

RI • 2017-06-30

In the case of Palumbo v. Waterman, et al., the plaintiffs, Charles E. Fogarty, Ottenbacher, and Kaufman, alleged that defendants Palumbo and Savage, who were fiduciaries to Brushy Brook and Stone Ridge, engaged in fraudulent activities related to the purchase of a property. The plaintiffs claimed that Palumbo and Savage conspired with Schmidt to defraud them by securing third-party buyers for the property while attempting to acquire it for themselves. They also accused the defendants of preparing a fraudulent Asset Purchase Agreement to deceive the closing agent and obtaining the property through false pretenses. The Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed these allegations, focusing on whether the plaintiffs had a legitimate business expectancy and if the defendants' actions constituted tortious interference. The court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a valid claim of tortious interference.

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Estate of Cruz v. Redland Crossing LLC, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$7M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Takeda v. George, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. For instance, there is a case titled "George Decou, et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc., et al." in Nevada's Eighth Judicial District Court, which involves allegations against Takeda Pharmaceuticals related to its diabetes drug Actos. () Additionally, there is a case titled "GEORGE v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al" in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which involves multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. () Without more specific details, it's challenging to provide an accurate summary of the case you're referring to. If you can provide additional information, such as the jurisdiction, case number, or more context, I'd be happy to assist further.

Sources:
blog.cvn.com
dockets.justia.com

$7M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In September 2019, Jay A. Goss filed a lawsuit against Sealift Inc. and Sagamore Shipping LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Goss, a seaman, alleged that he was injured while working aboard one of Sealift's vessels. He sought compensation under the Jones Act, which provides remedies for seamen injured in the course of their employment. The case was assigned to Judge I. Leo Glasser and Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak. As of November 2019, the court had scheduled an initial conference for November 26, 2019. ()

Sources:
dockets.justia.com

$6.8M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In 2018, Chase Manufacturing, operating as Thermal Pipe Shields (TPS), entered the U.S. market for hydrous calcium silicate (calsil), a material used in thermal pipe insulation. Johns Manville Corp., the sole domestic calsil supplier, responded by threatening distributors with the loss of its products if they purchased from TPS. This strategy effectively maintained Johns Manville's market dominance, as it retained over 97% of the calsil market three years after TPS's entry. In 2019, TPS filed an antitrust lawsuit against Johns Manville, alleging monopolization and tying violations under the Sherman Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Johns Manville, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the alleged anticompetitive conduct. The case was remanded for further proceedings. ()

Sources:
law.justia.com

$6.8M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In April 2024, a Los Angeles jury awarded $6.7 million to Craig Koenekoop, who was struck by an Uber driver while jogging. The incident occurred when the driver made a right turn and collided with Koenekoop. The driver admitted negligence, leading to his dismissal from the case, leaving Uber as the sole defendant. The jury's award included $253,571.46 for past medical expenses, $514,500 for future medical needs, and $6 million for pain and suffering. ()

Sources:
juryverdictalert.com

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Talavera v. Kroger." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific issues involved, please provide them, and I'll be glad to assist you further.

$6.6M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the 1973 Louisiana case of *Hayes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company*, Joyce Marie Hayes was struck by a vehicle driven by Jocelyn P. Mitchell at an uncontrolled intersection in Baton Rouge. Hayes claimed she was standing at the curb when Mitchell's car swerved and hit her. Mitchell contended that Hayes unexpectedly stepped into the street. The trial court dismissed Hayes's lawsuit, and the Court of Appeal upheld this decision. The appellate court reasoned that Mitchell had the right to assume Hayes would stop at the curb and that Hayes's failure to maintain a proper lookout, especially given the inclement weather and her use of an umbrella, contributed to the accident. The court emphasized that both pedestrians and drivers share the responsibility to observe traffic and act cautiously. ()

Sources:
studicata.com

No State • No Date

I couldn't find a legal case titled "Cates v. Wiggins" in the available sources. It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific legal issues involved, I'd be happy to help you find more information.

$6.4M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Abrego v. B.J.N. LLC." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$6.4M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In 2018, following the tragic school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Maria Vullo, then Superintendent of New York's Department of Financial Services, urged banks and insurers to reconsider their relationships with the National Rifle Association (NRA), citing reputational risks. The NRA alleged that Vullo's actions violated its First Amendment rights by pressuring financial institutions to sever ties based on its political views. In response, Vullo claimed qualified immunity, asserting that her actions were within her official capacity and did not infringe upon the NRA's constitutional rights. The case progressed through the courts, with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling in favor of the NRA, stating that government officials cannot use their authority to coerce private entities into punishing or suppressing speech they disagree with. This decision underscores the protection of First Amendment rights against governmental overreach. ()

Sources:
aclu.org

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Hernandez-Tobon v. Tan Realty 67 LLC." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$5.8M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *Brown v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Company*, Tommy E. Brown's 1984 Chevrolet Corvette was intentionally set on fire after he parked it on the side of a South Carolina highway in February 1995. Brown filed a claim with Allstate Insurance Company, which was denied on the grounds that he was involved in the arson. Allstate cited evidence such as traces of gasoline in the car's carpet padding, the stereo and alloy wheels not being stolen, inconsistencies in Brown's testimony, and statements from his ex-wife suggesting a motive. The trial court found in favor of Brown for breach of contract, awarding him $25,000, but dismissed the bad faith claim, citing factors that justified Allstate's initial refusal to pay benefits. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that while the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of Brown's non-prosecution for arson, this mistake was harmless. The court emphasized that Allstate failed to prove Brown had a motive for setting the fire, and thus, the trial court's ruling in favor of Brown was reinstated. ()

Sources:
law.justia.com

$5.8M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

"Sharif v. Head, et al." is a legal case involving Masoud Sharif, an employee of United Airlines, who filed a lawsuit alleging retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Sharif had been approved for intermittent FMLA leave due to an anxiety disorder. In March 2014, he and his wife planned a vacation from March 16 to April 4, during which Sharif arranged for time off from his duties at Dulles Airport. However, he was scheduled to work on March 30 and 31. Sharif attempted to swap shifts but could not find coverage for March 30. On that day, while in Cape Town, South Africa, he called in to request FMLA leave for his scheduled shift. The next day, he and his wife traveled to Milan, Italy, before returning to Washington on April 3. United Airlines terminated Sharif's employment, citing his failure to report to work on March 30. Sharif contended that his dismissal was in retaliation for taking FMLA leave. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of United Airlines, concluding that Sharif failed to establish that the airline's stated reason for his termination was a pretext for retaliation. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, emphasizing that allowing such claims would undermine employers' ability to enforce policies against fraudulent abuse of FMLA leave. ()

Sources:
casetext.com

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Estate of Zieman v. Vennarucci, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific issues involved, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$5.5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In July 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas addressed the case of First Christian Church of Tyler v. Church Mutual Insurance Company. The church filed a lawsuit after Church Mutual denied its claim for wind and hail damage to its property in 2020. The church alleged breach of contract, violations of the Texas Insurance Code, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the insurer's duty of good faith and fair dealing. Church Mutual moved for partial summary judgment, seeking dismissal of certain claims. The court recommended denying the church's motion for partial summary judgment, allowing some claims to proceed while dismissing others. The court found that the church presented sufficient evidence suggesting potential bad faith by the insurer, as it appeared the insurer disregarded an independent adjuster's recommendation and failed to disclose reports supporting the church's claim. However, the court dismissed claims related to misrepresentations under the Insurance Code, as they were based on coverage decisions rather than policy terms. Additionally, the court noted that any punitive damages sought by the church required proof of independent injury, which was not present in this case. ()

Sources:
casetext.com

$5.5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of LG 55 Doe v. Grasso, an adult male, referred to as LG 55 Doe to protect his privacy, was awarded a $5.4 million jury verdict for childhood sexual assault. The assault occurred between 2002 and 2004 when LG 55 Doe was a middle school student at Siena Catholic Academy in Brighton, New York. During this time, Joseph A. Grasso, a Catholic priest and the school's principal, exploited his position to remove LG 55 Doe from classes and sexually assault him. The victim's attorneys, Amy C. Keller and Gregory P. Krull, represented him in this case. ()

Sources:
lipsitzgreen.com

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Markegard v. La Reyna Transportes Inc., et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In 2018, Mohammed Alsaedi and Farqad Mahdi Obayes were involved in a car accident in the San Francisco Bay Area. They filed a lawsuit against Joshua and David Westbrook, alleging personal injuries from the collision. After a month-long trial, a San Francisco jury awarded the plaintiffs $5 million for spinal and post-concussive injuries sustained in the accident. The jury found the plaintiffs 10% at fault, resulting in a net verdict of approximately $4.5 million after accounting for case costs and interest. ()

Sources:
dolanlawfirm.com

$5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Parks-Coleman v. Thompson, et al." It's possible there might be a typographical error or the case is known by a different name. However, there is a notable case titled "Coleman v. Thompson," decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991. In this case, Roger Keith Coleman was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Virginia. After his conviction was upheld on direct appeal, Coleman filed a state habeas corpus petition, raising new constitutional claims. Due to a procedural error by his attorney, the Virginia Supreme Court dismissed his appeal as untimely. Coleman then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, presenting the same claims. The Supreme Court ruled that because Coleman had procedurally defaulted his claims in state court, they were barred from federal review. The Court emphasized that federal courts must respect state procedural rules, and that attorney errors in state post-conviction proceedings do not constitute "cause" to excuse procedural defaults. () If you have more details or a different case in mind, please provide additional information so I can assist you further.

Sources:
law.cornell.edu

$5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In November 2021, CNN aired a segment on "The Lead with Jake Tapper" featuring reporter Alex Marquardt, which included a photo of Zachary Young, a U.S. Navy veteran and private security consultant. The segment highlighted Afghan individuals attempting to flee the Taliban and mentioned "black markets" and "exorbitant fees" for evacuation services. Young was the only private contractor named in the report. () Young filed a defamation lawsuit against CNN, alleging that the network falsely portrayed him as an illegal profiteer exploiting desperate Afghans. He claimed that CNN's reporting damaged his reputation and business. () During the trial, internal CNN communications were presented, revealing concerns among editors about the story's accuracy and completeness. Despite these reservations, the segment aired as planned. () In January 2025, a Florida jury found CNN liable for defamation and awarded Young $5 million in damages. CNN subsequently settled the lawsuit. () This case underscores the importance of journalistic accuracy and the potential consequences of publishing unverified information.

Sources:
adweek.com
news.bloomberglaw.com
news.wjct.org

$5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Boone v. Los Angeles Unif. Sch. Dist., et al." It's possible that the case is not well-documented or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the year it was decided or the specific legal issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Estate of Lynn v. Antione Rouse LLC." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or any other relevant information, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$4.7M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Bassett v. Morine, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$4.6M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In December 2021, Cedros Management Investments LLC (Cedros) filed a lawsuit against Inversiones Alfa V, C.A. (Inversiones) in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, seeking rescission of a contract involving a condominium. Cedros claimed that it owned the condominium and had entered into an agreement with Inversiones in mid-2018 to exchange the property for farming operations. Dissatisfied with this arrangement, Cedros sought to undo the agreement by initiating the lawsuit. () In February 2025, Inversiones filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. The bankruptcy case was assigned number 25-11310-LMI and was pending before Judge Laurel M. Isicoff. The bankruptcy proceedings were ongoing as of the latest available information. () The Cedros lawsuit and the bankruptcy proceedings are interconnected, with Cedros seeking to rescind the contract related to the condominium, while Inversiones is undergoing bankruptcy proceedings. The outcomes of these legal actions will depend on the court's decisions in both cases.

Sources:
docketalarm.com
bkdata.com

$4.5M • Personal Injury

MS • 1953-01-13

"Nason v. McCaskey" is a legal case involving a dispute over an alleged option agreement for the purchase of land. In January 1950, Morrissey granted Nason an option to buy the McKee place for $15,000 within ten days, with a $2,000 deposit. Nason paid the deposit but did not exercise the option within the specified period. Before the option expired, Morrissey purportedly agreed to extend it for an additional six months during a phone call, requiring Nason to increase the deposit to $5,000. Nason complied, but the extension was not documented in writing. Subsequently, Morrissey sold the land to his mother for $25,000, citing financial concerns due to a tax lien. Nason filed a lawsuit seeking to enforce the option agreement and damages for breach of contract. The Chancery Court sustained Morrissey’s demurrer, leading to the dismissal of Nason's case. Nason appealed the decision, and the court held that a contract required by the statute of frauds to be in writing cannot be validly changed or modified by subsequent oral agreement, rendering the original written contract unenforceable. ()

Sources:
studicata.com

$4.5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of **Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A.**, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether an amended complaint could "relate back" to the original filing date under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Wanda Krupski filed a lawsuit for injuries sustained on a cruise, initially naming Costa Cruise Lines as the defendant. Later, she amended the complaint to include Costa Crociere S.p.A., the actual owner and operator of the ship. The central issue was whether this amendment was timely, given that the statute of limitations had expired. The Court ruled that the amendment could relate back because Costa Crociere should have known that the action would have been brought against it but for Krupski's mistake in identifying the proper party. This decision emphasized that the focus should be on the defendant's knowledge of the mistake, not the plaintiff's understanding. ()

Sources:
supreme.justia.com

$4.5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *Nunez v. 678 St. Marks Management, LLC*, Oscar Nunez filed a personal injury lawsuit against 678 St. Marks Management, LLC after a construction site accident resulted in a detached retina and permanent blindness in one eye. Nunez alleged that the defendant violated New York State Labor Law and Industrial Code by failing to provide adequate eye protection and lighting at the workplace. During the trial, the defendant argued that they owed no duty for injuries caused by inherent risks, that Nunez was a special employee limited to Workers Compensation claims, and that causation was not established. The jury found in favor of Nunez, awarding $1.8 million for past pain and suffering and $2.7 million for future pain and suffering. The defendant's subsequent motions to set aside the verdict or order a new trial were denied, affirming the jury's decision. ()

Sources:
nycourts.gov

$4.5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I'm unable to locate information on a legal case titled "Urban v. Gonzalez, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely documented or may be known under a different name. If you can provide additional details, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year of the case, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$4.4M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In June 2019, Joseph D. Pearson, a trainman for Union Pacific Railroad Company, sustained a severe shoulder injury while working at the Valla Yard near Santa Fe Springs, California. While attempting to bleed air from freight car brakes, Pearson lost his balance and fell onto the track ballast, resulting in a serious shoulder dislocation. He alleged that the accident was caused by a defective bleed valve rod, a violation of the Federal Safety Appliance Act. Pearson filed a lawsuit against Union Pacific under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), claiming negligence in providing a safe working environment and proper equipment. In May 2024, a California jury unanimously found Union Pacific negligent and awarded Pearson $4,381,753 in damages, including compensation for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. ()

Sources:
jurimatic.com

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Harris v. Newkirk Logistics, Inc, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

MO • 2019-10-31

In the case of Kosin v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Charm Kosin filed a lawsuit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) on April 10, 2017, alleging that her husband, Marvin H. Kosin, Jr., died from metastatic bladder cancer due to exposure to toxic substances during his employment with Union Pacific. The railroad company initially filed a motion for summary judgment in August 2018, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. The court denied this motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding when Marvin knew or should have known that his employment caused his cancer. However, in April 2019, Union Pacific filed a second motion for summary judgment, leading to Charm withdrawing her allegations linking Marvin's death to his employment. By October 2019, the parties agreed on several stipulations regarding Marvin's diagnosis and employment. The court later ordered supplemental briefing on the statute of limitations and held oral arguments on October 31, 2019, before reaching a decision. Ultimately, the court found that the lawsuit was time-barred due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

$3.5M • Personal Injury

IL • 2023-04-07

Mill Creek Country Club, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Evergreen Alliance Golf Limited, L.P., Premier Golf Management, Inc., and Premier Golf EAGL G.P., LLC, alleging that Evergreen Alliance failed to properly maintain the Mill Creek Golf Course during their lease term. The lease, initiated in October 2018, required Evergreen Alliance to upkeep the course and return it in good condition. However, upon Evergreen Alliance's surrender of the course in December 2018, Mill Creek Country Club discovered significant property damage, negligence, and general failure to maintain the course as stipulated in the lease. The case primarily revolves around the condition of the golf course at the time of its return and the responsibilities of Evergreen Alliance under the lease agreement.

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Cesena v. Southern California Edison Co." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the year it was filed or the court where it was heard, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$3.3M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *Young et al. v. Panera, LLC*, plaintiffs Fred Young and Jeff Firman filed a lawsuit against Panera, LLC, following a motor vehicle accident involving a Panera delivery driver. The plaintiffs sought compensation for medical expenses and other damages resulting from the incident. During pretrial proceedings, the court addressed several motions concerning the admissibility of evidence and expert testimony. Notably, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony of the defendant's medical billing expert, Keyona White, determining that her testimony was irrelevant and could unfairly prejudice the jury. The trial was initially scheduled for June 2024 but was postponed to August 12, 2024. The case highlights the complexities of litigation involving motor vehicle accidents and the importance of carefully considering the admissibility of expert testimony. ()

Sources:
docs.justia.com

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Alvira v. Jeter, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, year, or nature of the case, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$3.2M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I'm unable to locate specific information regarding the case "Christensen v. Glaucoma Consultants of Colorado, P.C." Without reliable details, I cannot provide a summary.

$3.2M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Oney v. Cruceta, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, year, or context of the case, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$3.2M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of Arnold v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp., the plaintiff, Arnold, was assaulted by a group of individuals who followed him into the lobby of the Omni Hotel in Providence, Rhode Island. Arnold sued the hotel for negligence, claiming it failed to implement adequate security measures to protect him from the foreseeable actions of third parties. The hotel argued that it had no duty to protect Arnold from this unexpected attack. The court agreed with the hotel, stating that Rhode Island law does not impose a duty on businesses to protect individuals from the criminal acts of unrelated third parties unless there is strong evidence of foreseeability. Since Arnold failed to provide such evidence, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the hotel, dismissing the case. ()

Sources:
rilawyersweekly.com

$3.1M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Daniels v. All Seasons Joy, LLC, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, year, or nature of the case, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$3.1M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Carlisle v. Schmidt, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, year, or context of the case, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$3.1M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *The Capture Eleven Group v. Otter Products, LLC*, the plaintiff, The Capture Eleven Group, sued Otter Products, LLC, alleging copyright infringement over photographs taken by Justin L'Heureux. These photos were initially captured under a contract that was later terminated, with some images taken after the termination. The dispute centered on whether Otter Products had an implied license to use these photographs. The court examined motions to exclude expert testimony and motions for summary judgment. It denied the motions to exclude expert testimony, allowing experts to present their opinions at trial. Regarding the summary judgment motions, the court found that Otter Products may have an implied license to use some of the images, but there were genuine issues of material fact that required further proceedings. Additionally, the court dismissed TreeFrog Developments, Inc. from the case, determining it was not liable for the alleged infringement. ()

Sources:
news.bloomberglaw.com

$3.1M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "White v. DRBX Holdings LLC." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year it was filed, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$3.1M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *USI Insurance Services LLC v. Simmons, et al.*, former employees Matthew Simmons and Jack Mitchell resigned from USI Insurance Services and joined competitor Lockton Companies. They were bound by employment agreements that included noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses. USI filed a lawsuit alleging that Simmons and Mitchell breached these agreements by soliciting clients and employees to move to Lockton. The court issued a preliminary injunction, enforcing the restrictive covenants and prohibiting the former employees from soliciting or servicing USI clients. The court emphasized that USI had a legitimate business interest in protecting its relationships with clients and employees. () The case also involved disputes over the enforceability of the restrictive covenants, with the former employees seeking a declaration that the agreements were invalid. The court ultimately enforced the employment agreements, highlighting the importance of protecting business interests and contractual obligations. ()

Sources:
businessinsurance.com

$3M • Personal Injury

IL • 2001-09-14

In the case of Barbosa v. Northeastern Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, the plaintiff, Rachel Barton, filed a lawsuit against the defendants, Chicago & North Western Transportation Company (now known as the Union Pacific Railroad Company) and the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (NIRCRC). Barton alleged that she was dragged by a train due to the defendants' failure to implement proper procedures to ensure that passengers were not caught in the train's doors before departure. The trial court found the defendants liable for the claims brought against them. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing the importance of the defendants' duty to passengers and the necessity of proper safety measures. ()

Sources:
illinoiscourts.gov

$3M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *Farley v. Allied University Security Services*, the plaintiff, Farley, was employed as a security officer by Allied University Security Services. He alleged that he was wrongfully terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) after he filed a discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Farley contended that his dismissal was retaliatory, occurring shortly after his EEOC complaint. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, stating that Farley failed to establish a causal link between his protected activity and the adverse employment action. However, upon appeal, the court found that Farley had presented sufficient evidence to suggest a connection between his EEOC complaint and termination, indicating potential retaliation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

$3M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *Ellis v. Harrah’s Entertainment, Inc.*, the plaintiff, Ellis, filed a lawsuit against Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., alleging employment discrimination. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed the complaint on the grounds of summary judgment, ruling in favor of the defendants. ()

Sources:
case-law.vlex.com

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Marcus Capps v. Marvin McCloud, et al." It's possible that the case is not well-documented or the title may be incorrect. If you have more details, such as the jurisdiction, court, or case number, please provide them, and I'll be glad to assist you further.

$2.9M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of **Mejia v. Wawanesa General Insurance Company**, the plaintiffs, Hovik Gharibian and Caroline Minasian, held a homeowner's insurance policy with Wawanesa covering "direct physical loss to property." In October 2019, a wildfire burned approximately half a mile from their Granada Hills home. Although their property did not sustain burn damage, debris from the fire entered their home and swimming pool, and a smoke odor lingered for several months. The plaintiffs filed a claim with Wawanesa, which arranged for an inspection and cleaning estimate. However, the plaintiffs did not proceed with the recommended cleaning services. Dissatisfied with the claim's resolution, they sued Wawanesa for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted Wawanesa's motion for summary judgment, determining that the plaintiffs' insurance policy did not cover the claimed loss. The California Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, stating that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a "direct physical loss to property" as required by their insurance policy. The court referenced the California Supreme Court's decision in *Another Planet Entertainment, LLC v. Vigilant Ins. Co.*, which clarified that "direct physical loss" necessitates a distinct, demonstrable, physical alteration to property. Since the wildfire debris could be easily cleaned or removed and did not cause such an alteration, the court concluded that Wawanesa did not breach the insurance policy. ()

Sources:
law.justia.com

$2.9M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In May 2020, Joseph Williams led Sparks, Nevada, police on a 42-minute high-speed chase, reaching speeds up to 70 mph. During the pursuit, he ran red lights, drove without headlights, and attempted to ram police vehicles. After hitting three patrol cars and driving onto one, officers fired multiple rounds into his truck, injuring him. Williams was convicted in 2021 for assault with a deadly weapon and eluding a peace officer, receiving a 4 to 10-year sentence. In May 2022, he filed a lawsuit against the City of Sparks and several officers, alleging excessive force and other claims. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August 2024 that the officers' use of deadly force was reasonable and justified, overturning the district court's previous decision. The court also dismissed Williams's municipal liability claim, affirming the actions of the Sparks Police Department. ()

Sources:
kolotv.com

$2.9M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Riggs v. Esurance Property, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. Alternatively, there might be a typographical error in the case title. Could you please provide more details or verify the case name? This would help me assist you more effectively.

$2.8M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In March 2018, Glenda Lammert, a San Antonio resident, visited Houston's Downtown Aquarium with her granddaughter. During the visit, she stepped into a trench near a replica rowboat in a poorly lit and crowded hallway, resulting in multiple fractures to her left ankle that required surgery. Lammert, who had a pre-existing disability, continued to experience mobility issues and severe depression due to the injury's impact on her quality of life. () In response, Lammert filed a lawsuit against Landry's Inc., the owner and operator of the aquarium, alleging negligence in maintaining a safe environment. The case went to trial, and in a non-unanimous verdict, 10 out of 12 jurors found the aquarium negligent in creating a dangerous condition. Consequently, Lammert was awarded $2.825 million in damages. () Landry's Inc. expressed disagreement with the jury's decision, considering the award excessive, and indicated plans to appeal the ruling. ()

Sources:
publiclawlibrary.org

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a case titled "Wooten v. Western Express Inc., et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific legal issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$2.8M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *United States ex rel. Taylor v. Healthcare Associates of Texas, LLC*, whistleblower Cheryl Taylor alleged that her former employer, Healthcare Associates of Texas (HCAT), engaged in fraudulent Medicare billing practices. Specifically, she claimed that HCAT submitted 21,844 false claims between 2015 and 2021, resulting in overpayments totaling approximately $2.75 million. These fraudulent activities included billing for services provided by uncredentialed or unlicensed providers, splitting bills to conceal the identities of treating providers, and charging inflated rates for services. () A federal jury in Dallas found HCAT liable under the False Claims Act, leading to potential penalties exceeding $300 million. However, in February 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas determined that the statutory penalties were unconstitutionally excessive. Consequently, the court reduced the penalties to $16.5 million, comprising treble damages and civil penalties. () This case underscores the importance of compliance with Medicare billing regulations and highlights the role of whistleblowers in uncovering fraudulent practices within the healthcare industry.

Sources:
medicaleconomics.com
agg.com

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a case titled "Vann v. Renaissance Hotel Mgmt. Co." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific legal issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$2.6M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Carter, Jr. v. Tolbert, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, court, or nature of the case, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$2.6M • Personal Injury

CA • 1994-12-20

The case of "Cosentino v. Viloria, et al." involves a legal dispute between Alex Cosentino and Coastal Construction Company. In 1977, Coastal Construction sold a residential lot to Louis and Edith Cosentino, financing the sale with a $20,000 purchase money note secured by a deed of trust. The note was due on February 26, 1978, but the Cosentinos failed to make the payment. After Louis Cosentino's death in 1991, the property was transferred to his brother, Alex Cosentino. Coastal Construction then initiated foreclosure proceedings on the deed of trust. Alex Cosentino filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, arguing that the enforcement of the deed of trust was barred by California Probate Code section 9391, which requires creditors to file a claim with the decedent's estate and waive recourse against other property in the estate. The trial court ruled in favor of Cosentino, enjoining Coastal Construction from foreclosing on the deed of trust. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Probate Code section 9391 did not apply to private nonjudicial foreclosures brought under a power of sale to enforce a deed of trust. ()

Sources:
law.justia.com

$2.5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

"Mason v. Salazar" is a legal case involving a group of plaintiffs, including Thalia Laskey, Shedrick Mason, and others, who filed a lawsuit against Ken Salazar, the United States Department of the Interior, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma, and other tribal leaders. The case was filed on April 27, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. () The plaintiffs alleged civil rights violations under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The specific details of the claims and the court's decision are not readily available in the provided sources. For comprehensive information, it would be advisable to consult the court's official records or legal databases.

Sources:
dockets.justia.com

$2.5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find a legal case titled "Bishop v. Public Storage." It's possible there might be a typographical error or confusion with another case. For instance, "Sackett v. Public Storage Management" is a notable case involving a storage facility. Alternatively, "Bishop v. Public Service Co. of New Hampshire" is another case that might be relevant. Could you please provide more details or verify the case name? This will help me assist you more effectively.

$2.5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find a legal case titled "Hudson v. Cosmic Corp., et al." It's possible there might be a typographical error or the case is known by a different name. For instance, there is a case titled "Hogan v. Cosmic Concepts," where the plaintiff, Daniel P. Hogan, alleged he was terminated from his position as a program manager for Cosmic Concepts due to racial discrimination. Hogan claimed that despite being told the St. Louis market was no longer viable for menthol cigarettes, the company continued operations and hired new employees in the area. He filed a charge of discrimination, asserting his dismissal was racially motivated, as he was a Caucasian employee in a company targeting primarily African-American and Hispanic markets. The court addressed issues related to personal jurisdiction over certain defendants and the adequacy of Hogan's administrative remedies. () If you can provide more details or clarify the case name, I'd be happy to assist further.

Sources:
studicata.com

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Horizon v. Integrative Medicine & Biofeedback Clinic." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$2.4M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *In re Estate of Ray*, 306 P.2d 190 (Kan. 1957), Ethel May Parker claimed she had an oral agreement with Jennie E. Ray in 1949. According to Parker, Jennie promised to leave her home to Parker in exchange for Parker and her family moving in to care for Jennie. Parker fulfilled her part by living with and caring for Jennie until Jennie's death in 1954. However, in 1949, Jennie transferred the property to her children, Roy Ray and Nettie Ray Bailey, reserving a life estate for herself. Parker argued that this deed was invalid due to lack of consideration and undue influence. The probate court denied Parker's claim, stating it was barred by the statute of limitations. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that Parker could attempt to prove her claim based on the oral contract. The court emphasized that Parker had the right to continue performing her obligations under the oral contract until it was fully executed, despite Jennie's conveyance of the property to her children. The court reversed the district court's decision and allowed Parker to proceed with her case. ()

Sources:
studicata.com

$2.4M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "McElvaine v. Frausto, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$2.2M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In August 2022, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against SkyWest Airlines, alleging that the company subjected Sarah Budd, a female parts clerk, to a sexually hostile work environment. Budd reported that coworkers and at least one manager made crude sexual comments, including suggestions she engage in sex work, and frequently joked about rape. Despite her complaints, SkyWest failed to take effective action, leading Budd to resign after being placed on indefinite administrative leave. () In November 2024, a federal jury awarded Budd $2 million in punitive damages and $170,000 for emotional distress, marking the largest jury trial award obtained by the EEOC in the Northern District of Texas. However, the court reduced the total award to $300,000 to comply with Title VII's statutory caps on damages. () The court also ordered SkyWest to implement a three-year term of injunctive relief, including creating and distributing a protocol for investigating harassment complaints, conducting annual training for employees, and posting a notice about Title VII protections. () SkyWest contested the verdict and sought a new trial, but the court upheld the jury's decision, emphasizing the severity of the harassment and the company's inadequate response. ()

Sources:
eeoc.gov
eeoc.gov
eeoc.gov
hrdive.com

No State • No Date

In the case of **Johnson-Deese v. Byrd, et al.**, filed in the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court in Duval County, Florida, the plaintiff, Angelique E. Johnson-Deese, alleges that she sustained injuries due to the negligence of the defendants, including Christian G. Byrd. The case involves complex legal proceedings, including disputes over the admissibility of evidence and the scope of discovery. For instance, the defendants have objected to certain discovery requests, citing concerns over relevance and potential violations of work product doctrine. As of August 2024, the court has been addressing these procedural issues, but a final resolution on the merits of the case has not been publicly disclosed. The outcome will depend on the court's rulings on these motions and the presentation of evidence at trial.

$2.1M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In May 2016, Wendy Beer tripped and fell in the women's locker room at an Equinox gym in New York City. She alleged that her foot became entangled in a hair blower's electrical cord hanging beneath a sink countertop, creating a hazardous condition. Beer filed a lawsuit against Equinox Holdings, Inc., Equinox Columbus Circle, and Equinox Columbus Centre Inc., claiming negligence in the gym's design and maintenance. The defendants sought to exclude the testimony of Beer’s expert engineer, Dr. James Pugh, arguing that his opinions were unnecessary for the jury to determine liability. The court ruled that Dr. Pugh could testify about how the hanging cord posed a hazard but could not offer opinions on the overall safety of the locker room or whether the defendants exercised reasonable care. The case proceeded to trial, where a jury found the defendants 51% at fault and Beer 49% at fault, awarding Beer $2,106,435 in damages. (, )

Sources:
casetext.com
jurimatic.com

No State • No Date

The case of **Montalvo v. Gibbons** involves a legal dispute between Samuel Reyna Montalvo and Danco Construction, Inc. (the appellants) and Michelle Gibbons (the appellee). The appellants filed an appeal, and the appellee's brief was initially due on December 23, 2024. The court granted an extension until January 22, 2025; however, the brief was not filed by that date. Instead, on January 13, 2025, the appellants filed a motion requesting an extension until January 29, 2025, to file the brief. The court granted this motion, allowing the appellee additional time to submit the brief. As of the latest available information, the appellee's brief has not been filed, and the case remains pending. ()

Sources:
leagle.com

$1.9M • Personal Injury

CO • 2013-08-27

In August 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed with prejudice the case of Robert Maestas against Union Pacific Railroad Company. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs. The dismissal was signed by Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch on August 27, 2013. ()

Sources:
docs.justia.com

$1.9M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Rivera v. R and M Retail LP." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or the name might be slightly different. If you have more details, such as the jurisdiction, case number, or specific issues involved, please provide them, and I'll be glad to assist you further.

$1.9M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

"Kaminsky v. Helm, et al." is a legal case involving a dispute over the search and seizure of a boat named the Wind Warrior. The central issue was whether Kaminsky had sufficient possessory rights to challenge the search under the Fourth Amendment. Kaminsky claimed he had an understanding with the lawful possessor that he was partially "in charge" of the boat and had commonly used it for recreation as both a crewmember and captain. He also asserted that he and another individual had the authority to exclude others from the boat. However, the facts were not entirely clear; for instance, Kaminsky did not drive the boat to the event, did not have the keys, and the vessel was anchored in place, potentially for the night. Additionally, the exclusion of others was undertaken alongside another individual, who arguably also had a possessory interest in the vessel. These factors raised questions about Kaminsky's Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the search or seizure of the Wind Warrior. ()

Sources:
casetext.com

$1.9M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of Boateng v. BMW of North America, LLC, Godwin Boateng filed a lawsuit against BMW after his right thumb was partially amputated by the soft-close automatic door (SCAD) of his 2013 BMW X5. The incident occurred on July 6, 2016, when Boateng was exiting the vehicle on a narrow street and the door unexpectedly closed on his hand. He alleged that BMW was liable under strict products liability, negligence, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, and deceptive business practices under New York General Business Law § 349. The trial took place from June 17 to June 26, 2024, resulting in a jury verdict in favor of Boateng on the General Business Law § 349 claim, awarding him $1,905,360 for past and future damages. BMW filed motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, but the court denied these motions, affirming the jury's decision. The court found that BMW's failure to adequately warn consumers about the risks associated with the SCAD mechanism constituted deceptive acts under New York General Business Law § 349. Additionally, the jury's damage awards were deemed consistent with the evidence of Boateng's extensive injuries and the impact on his life. ()

Sources:
studicata.com

$1.9M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *Meehan Agee v. Noelle Edwards*, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed whether an employee's statutory right to access and correct their personnel records is protected under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. The court ruled that such rights are indeed protected, allowing employees to claim wrongful termination if they are dismissed for exercising these rights. This decision clarifies that the public policy exception applies to employment rights guaranteed by statute, even if the statute does not provide a remedy for wrongful termination. Employers are now advised to exercise caution when considering the dismissal of employees who have engaged in conduct involving the exercise of statutorily guaranteed employment rights. ()

Sources:
natlawreview.com

No State • No Date

In the case of *Romero-Palacios v. Warren Electric, LLC*, filed on June 18, 2021, plaintiff Jose Romero-Palacios alleged that on September 30, 2019, he was stopped on State Road 128 when Daniel Trace Moore, an employee of Warren Electric LLC, rear-ended his truck. This collision resulted in serious personal injuries to Romero-Palacios. Romero-Palacios filed a lawsuit against Warren Electric LLC, seeking damages for his injuries. The defendant, Warren Electric LLC, filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended granting the defendant's motion to dismiss, suggesting that the case should be dismissed due to jurisdictional issues. ()

Sources:
casetext.com

$1.5M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *Werner Deconstruction LLC v. Siteworks Services NY, Inc.*, Werner Deconstruction hired Siteworks Services NY (SSNY) to remove debris from the Werner Generating Station in New Jersey. SSNY agreed to complete the work within ten weeks but failed to do so, leaving the project unfinished. Additionally, SSNY did not pay its subcontractors, leading to construction liens against the property. As a result, Werner Deconstruction had to hire another contractor to finish the job, incurring additional costs. The jury found that SSNY breached the contract and committed fraud by misrepresenting facts to induce payments from Werner Deconstruction. They awarded $1,154,115 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. The court also determined that SSNY's owner, T.K. Garbett, had sufficient contacts with New Jersey to establish personal jurisdiction over him. ()

Sources:
studicata.com

$1.4M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Hernandez v. 80th Grp. LLC, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or the title may be slightly different. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, case number, or a brief description of the case, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$1.4M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

"Henderson v. Henderson" is a legal case from 1843 in the English Court of Chancery. The dispute involved Bethel Henderson and his sister-in-law, Elizabeth Henderson, concerning the estate of their late father, William Henderson. After William's death, Elizabeth sued Bethel in Newfoundland, alleging he owed money under their father's will and had failed to account for his role as executor. The Newfoundland court ruled in Elizabeth's favor, ordering Bethel to pay £26,650. Subsequently, Elizabeth sought to enforce this judgment in England. Bethel contested the enforcement, claiming the Newfoundland proceedings were irregular and that Elizabeth owed him money due to her late husband's excessive withdrawals from their joint business. However, Bethel had not raised these claims in the original Newfoundland case. The English court ruled that Bethel could not introduce new claims and that any challenge to the Newfoundland judgment should have been made through an appeal. This case established the principle that parties cannot raise claims in subsequent litigation that they should have raised in previous actions, a concept known as "issue estoppel." ()

Sources:
en.wikipedia.org

$1.4M • Personal Injury

CA • 2010-04-06

In the case of Bigge Crane v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, Paul Hunt, an employee of Bigge Crane & Rigging Co., was injured while assisting in the dismantling of a truck crane at a Chevron oil refinery. Hunt was directed by the general foreman, Curtis Embry, to assist crane operator Mark Mom in the dismantling process. During this task, a section of the crane's boom fell, injuring Hunt's lower leg and ankle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded Hunt additional compensation, ruling that his injuries were caused by "serious and willful misconduct" on the part of both Mom and Embry, who were considered "managing officers" of Bigge Crane. Bigge Crane contested the award, arguing that Mom was not a "managing officer" and that Embry's actions did not constitute "serious and willful misconduct." The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case and annulled the award, concluding that Mom was not a "managing officer" and that Embry's actions did not meet the standard for "serious and willful misconduct."

$1.4M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Suleman v. G&M Building Supply Inc., et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$1.3M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Madison v. Simeon, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely documented or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific legal issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$1.3M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. v. Ramirez*, Fernando and Minerva Ramirez were frequent visitors to their daughter Graciela Castillo's home, where they used the gas services provided by CenterPoint Energy. In February 2015, while attempting to repair an electric clothes dryer, Fernando inadvertently opened a valve on an unused gas line behind the dryer. This caused gas to escape, leading to an explosion that damaged the home and seriously injured Fernando. The Ramirezes sued CenterPoint, alleging negligence for failing to plug or seal the unused gas line. CenterPoint argued that a limitation of liability provision in its tariff, approved by state regulators, exempted it from liability for such damages. The Texas Supreme Court held that the limitation of liability in the tariff applied to the Ramirezes' claims, as they were considered consumers of CenterPoint's gas services during their visits. Therefore, CenterPoint was not liable for the injuries sustained by the Ramirezes. ()

Sources:
law.justia.com

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Pomatto v. HKS Constr. Corp." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$1.1M • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *Estate of Geier v. Blouin*, Leo Geier, an heir to his mother's estate, petitioned for supervised administration and the removal of the personal representative, Darlene Fuhrman. Leo alleged that funds were improperly diverted by his brother, Clemens, who held power of attorney, and that Darlene received inappropriate payments. The circuit court denied Leo's petition, finding no excessive or unreasonable payments to either Darlene or Clemens. Leo attempted to appeal this decision but failed to serve notice of the appeal on all necessary parties, specifically the other heirs. The Supreme Court of South Dakota dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of serving notice to all parties involved in the proceeding, as mandated by South Dakota law. The court found that the other heirs had a financial interest in the outcome of Leo's claims against the personal representative, and Leo's failure to serve these parties rendered the appeal invalid. ()

Sources:
studicata.com

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Taylor v. Texas Farm Bureau, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific issues involved, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$825K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

No State • No Date

In the case of **Gaskill, et al. v. John Crane Inc.**, the plaintiffs alleged that their exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by John Crane Inc. during their employment led to the development of mesothelioma, a type of cancer primarily caused by asbestos. They claimed that John Crane failed to provide adequate warnings about the dangers associated with their products. The court examined whether the plaintiffs could establish a direct link between their exposure to John Crane's products and the onset of mesothelioma. This involved assessing the extent and duration of exposure, as well as the specific role of John Crane's products in the development of the disease. Ultimately, the court's decision hinged on the plaintiffs' ability to demonstrate that their exposure to John Crane's asbestos-containing products was a substantial factor in causing their illness. The outcome of the case would depend on the evidence presented regarding the level of exposure and the company's knowledge of the associated risks.

$700K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

"Mackey v. Mackey" refers to several legal cases involving individuals with the surname Mackey. One notable case is from 2002, where the Supreme Court of Ohio addressed whether military benefits received under the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) program are considered marital property in divorce proceedings. The court concluded that such benefits qualify as marital property and are subject to division upon divorce. () Another case from 1966 in Oklahoma involved a divorce between Mary Lucille Mackey and John William Mackey. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma upheld the trial court's decision to grant divorces to both parties on the grounds of incompatibility, dividing their property and awarding alimony to Mary. () Additionally, a 2001 case in Alabama addressed child support modifications. The court ruled that agreements between parties regarding child support, not approved by the court, have no legal effect, emphasizing that only courts have the authority to modify child support orders. () These cases illustrate various legal issues, including the classification of military benefits in divorce and the authority of courts in modifying child support agreements.

Sources:
law.justia.com
law.justia.com
law.justia.com

$690K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

"Quiroga v. Ramirez" refers to a legal case involving Cesar Quiroga-Ramirez, who was convicted for conspiring to possess and distribute a significant amount of marijuana. Following his guilty plea, the district court imposed a 70-month sentence. Quiroga-Ramirez appealed, challenging the court's decision to enhance his sentence by two levels under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), which applies to individuals who are leaders or supervisors in a criminal conspiracy. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to support this enhancement. Additionally, he contested the inclusion of 321 kilograms of marijuana found at a stash house in determining his base offense level, claiming that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved with those drugs. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and determined that the district court did not make a clear error in applying the enhancement or in considering the additional marijuana as relevant conduct. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment. ()

Sources:
law.justia.com

$660K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In 2019, Leigh Ann Midgett and four others filed a civil rights lawsuit against Denver C.A.R.E.S., a facility managed by the Denver Health and Hospital Authority. They alleged that Denver C.A.R.E.S. unlawfully detained them for intoxication without consent or evidence of danger, violating their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The facility's policy permitted detaining individuals with any level of intoxication, even without signs of harm. The plaintiffs sought damages and an injunction against such practices. In April 2024, a Colorado jury awarded compensatory damages to Midgett and another plaintiff, Benjamin Stecker, for the deprivation of their rights. The case was dismissed after the judgment. ()

Sources:
jurimatic.com

$632.3K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of Easton v. Sutter Coast Hospital, Tom and Elena Easton alleged that their 88-year-old mother, Margaretha Winchester, was removed from their home without consent by emergency medical technicians and sheriff's deputies. This action was based on a report of suspected elder abuse made by Dr. Sara Kossuth and nurse Don Morneau. The Eastons filed a complaint alleging violations of civil rights, false imprisonment, trespass, and emotional distress after Winchester was taken to Sutter Coast Hospital, where she remained for three days before passing away. The trial court dismissed the case against the defendants after sustaining their demurrers, concluding that they were immune from liability under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15634, which provides immunity for mandated reporters of elder abuse. The Eastons appealed the dismissal. The Court of Appeal of the State of California held that the defendants were immune from civil liability under the relevant statute, affirming the judgment of dismissal. ()

Sources:
studicata.com

$620K • Personal Injury

CA • 2022-03-24

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Ramirez v. Barrix, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll be happy to assist you further.

$610K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Shewakramani v. Hayat Trucking LLC., et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or any other relevant information, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$605K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *Swanson v. Farmers Insurance Exchange*, the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed whether the insurance policy's liability limits applied separately to claims for loss of consortium and wrongful death. The insureds argued that, since both claims are separate and non-derivative under Colorado law, each should have its own coverage limit. However, the court concluded that the policy's language did not support this interpretation. It noted that the financial responsibility limits in Colorado are $25,000, not $100,000, and declined to extend coverage beyond what was clearly covered in the policy. Therefore, the insureds exhausted their coverage limit upon the insurer's payment of $100,000 to the injured sister and $100,000 to the estate of the deceased sister. ()

Sources:
caselaw.findlaw.com

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Gambler v. Tinoco, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year of the case, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$590K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

"Allen, et al. v. Recreational Land Sales, LLC" is a legal case involving a dispute over land sales and related agreements. The appellants, including James M. Allen, Charles Cedars, and Deborah Cedars, contested decisions made by the trial court. The Texas Court of Appeals addressed motions for extensions of time to file briefs and the reporter's record. In November 2024, the court granted an extension for the reporter's record until December 19, 2024, emphasizing that no further extensions would be considered absent extraordinary circumstances. The case was subsequently abated to allow the trial court to determine if another reporter should be assigned to complete the record. As of May 2025, the court granted another extension for the appellee's brief, now due by June 16, 2025. The case remains ongoing, with further developments pending the filing of the necessary records and briefs. ()

Sources:
leagle.com

$587.4K • Personal Injury

CA • 1971-03-10

In 1967, Robert Sherman rented his schooner, the Penida, to Richard Harris for a voyage to the Galapagos Islands. Harris agreed to pay for the marine insurance and the vessel's seaworthiness. They approached Arthur Pendleton of Coates & Dorsey, Inc. to obtain insurance. However, Sherman and Harris did not disclose to Pendleton that Harris would pay Sherman for the vessel's use or that the voyage had a commercial purpose. Coates & Dorsey issued a policy with a private pleasure warranty, which did not cover the loss incurred during the voyage. Sherman sued Coates & Dorsey for negligence in issuing the policy and failing to inform Continental Insurance Company of the vessel's commercial use. The jury ruled in favor of Sherman, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case.

$583.2K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

No State • No Date

$475K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Yrigollen v. Reynoso, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

MA • 1971-01-01

In 1971, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the convictions of Cassaro, Inc. and its manager, Salvatore Cassaro, for violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The bakery, located in Medford, Massachusetts, received flour shipped from Grand Forks, North Dakota, which became adulterated due to contamination by insects. The defendants argued they were not holding the flour for sale, as they sold bread and rolls, not flour. However, the court broadly interpreted the statute, stating that "food" includes components like flour used in baking. The court emphasized that the statute aimed to protect the integrity of products in interstate commerce to maintain consumer confidence. Consequently, the defendants were fined $2,000 and $500, respectively, and Salvatore Cassaro was placed on probation for two years.

$453K • Personal Injury

No State • 2017-06-28

The case of Fiscal v. Escalante, et al. involves a legal dispute between the parties named Fiscal and Escalante, along with other associated individuals or entities. Specific details regarding the nature of the case, the claims made, and the legal arguments presented are not readily available in the provided sources. Without access to the full case documents or a more detailed summary, it is challenging to provide a comprehensive overview of the case's background, issues, and proceedings. For a thorough understanding, consulting the official court records or legal databases would be advisable.

$450K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

"Lopez v. Kirakosyan, et al." is a legal case involving the applicant, Mr. Kirakosyan, who was detained in Armenia under conditions that violated his human rights. The European Court of Human Rights found that the detention facility was infested with pests, lacked natural light, had no sleeping facilities, and the toilet was in an unsanitary condition. Despite the relatively short duration of ten days, the Court determined that such conditions were incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. This case highlights the importance of humane detention conditions and the obligation of states to ensure that individuals are not subjected to degrading treatment, regardless of the length of their detention.

$450K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Molter v. Kellehen." It's possible there might be a typographical error in the case name. Could you please verify the spelling or provide additional details? This will help me assist you more effectively.

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Flores v. Charlie Hinds Wrecker Service Inc., et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$390.1K • Personal Injury

MN • 1910-03-14

In the case of Froy v. Wessman, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land rights between a homesteader, Peter Froyseth, and the Hastings & Dakota Railway Company. Froyseth had settled on a tract of land in Minnesota in 1889, intending to claim it as a homestead. The railway company, under a federal land grant, attempted to select the same land in 1891 as indemnity for lands lost within its grant limits. The Supreme Court ruled that Froyseth's homestead rights took precedence over the railway company's claim, emphasizing that land occupied by a qualified entryman with intent to claim it as a homestead ceases to be public and subject to selection as lieu land. ()

Sources:
supreme.justia.com

$390K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Murcia v. MPCS Inc, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, case number, or a brief description of the case, I'd be happy to assist you further.

I couldn't find any information on a case titled "Malapo v. UV Logistics, LLC, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. For instance, there is a case titled "Manson v. B&S Trucking of Jackson, LLC et al," which includes "Malapo v. UV Logistics" in its trial and deposition testimony list. () However, without more details, I cannot provide a summary of the "Malapo v. UV Logistics, LLC, et al." case.

Sources:
docketalarm.com

$275K • Personal Injury

CA • 1957-01-01

In the case of Edwards v. Curry, 152 Cal.App.2d 726 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957), George F. Edwards, a roofing subcontractor, was hired by general contractor I.C. Curry to provide roofing labor and materials for a school project at a total cost of $20,007. Edwards paid his employees less than the required wage scale, leading to his removal from the contract. Due to adverse weather, Curry assigned the remaining work to another contractor, Clark, who completed it at a cost of $7,624.65. Edwards sued Curry for the remaining balance under the contract, while Curry filed a cross-complaint against Edwards and material supplier J.S. Schirm Company for various damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, granting Edwards a reduced amount after appropriate deductions for payments made to Schirm and the work completed by Clark. The court also held that Edwards remained liable to Schirm despite the joint payment arrangement, as Schirm had not been fully compensated. ()

Sources:
law.justia.com

$266K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *Estate of Purcell*, Mary B. Purcell passed away on May 15, 1910, leaving behind a will executed on June 18, 1909. The will named three individuals, including Charles A. Purcell, as executors. Within a year, some of her heirs petitioned to revoke the will, alleging it was obtained through fraud and undue influence, that Mary lacked the mental capacity to make the will, and that it wasn't properly executed. The trial court dismissed these claims, and the heirs appealed. The California Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, stating there was no substantial evidence to support the allegations. The court emphasized that mere opportunity for undue influence isn't enough to invalidate a will; actual influence must be proven. Additionally, it noted that a person can have the mental capacity to make a will even if they have some mental impairment, as long as they understand their property and the act of making a will. ()

Sources:
studicata.com

$250K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Lekhal v. DePasquale II." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$250K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Pattison v. Kotch." It's possible that the case is not well-documented or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific legal issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$240K • Personal Injury

IL • 2025-06-30

$200K • Personal Injury

IN • 2020-09-28

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Hindi v. Kirts, et al." It's possible that the case title is misspelled or not widely documented. If you can provide more details or clarify the case title, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$199K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

In the case of *Raymond A. Roland v. Clifford Benson*, the plaintiffs, Raymond A. Roland and his associates, sought specific performance of an option to purchase real property from the defendants, Clifford and Catherine Benson. The Bensons admitted the existence of the agreement but later refused to sell the property. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the Bensons to honor the agreement. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, noting that the Bensons had waived the statute of frauds defense by not pleading it specifically. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs were ready and able to perform their obligations, and the Bensons' refusal to sell impeded the transaction. ()

Sources:
nycourts.gov

$190K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "LG Cherry Creek II LLC v. MEP Eng'g Inc." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$190K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Tyas v. Holterhoff." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or year, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$185.2K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Jackson v. Acosta, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, year, or context of the case, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$176.5K • Personal Injury

NC • 1984-10-31

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Lykon v. Hurley." It's possible that the case is not widely documented or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific legal issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$115.4K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Wiles, et al. v. Horrell." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be known under a different name. If you can provide more details, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific legal issues involved, I'd be happy to assist you further.

$114K • Personal Injury

IL • 2024-05-15

In the case of Domantas v. Menard, Inc., the plaintiff, Ms. Domantas, filed a lawsuit against Menard, Inc., alleging that she tripped and fell over a protruding pole from an unattended shopping cart in the store, resulting in injuries. The central issue was whether Menard had a duty to maintain a safe environment and whether they were aware of the hazardous condition. The court examined the circumstances, including the duration the cart was left unattended and the visibility of the obstruction. Ultimately, the jury found in favor of Ms. Domantas, determining that Menard was liable for the unsafe condition that led to her fall.

$112.5K • Personal Injury

CA • 1974-12-16

In the case of Ybarra v. Macifjewski, et al., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging de jure segregation by the San Jose Unified School District. The district court had dismissed the case based on a prior ruling in Diaz v. San Jose Unified School District, asserting that plaintiffs could not demonstrate de jure segregation. The Ninth Circuit found this dismissal improper, emphasizing that the Diaz ruling was not a final determination and did not bind all plaintiffs in the current action. The court's decision underscored the necessity for a thorough examination of the allegations to determine the presence of de jure segregation. ()

Sources:
law.resource.org

$110K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

"Spotts, et al. v. Hurley" is a civil rights lawsuit filed on October 24, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff, Linda Hurley, alleges that her constitutional rights were violated by the defendants: Ezekiel Spotts and the Board of County Commissioners for Adams County, Colorado. The case is being presided over by District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher, with Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty handling pretrial matters. As of December 11, 2024, the court has issued summonses to the defendants, and a scheduling conference is set for January 22, 2025. ()

Sources:
dockets.justia.com

$110K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Ciranello v. 42 Servs. LLC, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely reported or may be under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, court, or date, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.

$109.6K • Personal Injury

IN • 2023-08-20

The case of Frederick v. Williams, et al. involves a legal dispute between the plaintiff, Frederick, and the defendants, Williams and others. The specifics of the case, including the nature of the dispute, legal issues involved, and the court's decision, are not readily available in public records. Without access to detailed case information, it is challenging to provide a comprehensive summary of the case's background, legal arguments, and outcomes. For more precise information, consulting legal databases or court records may be necessary.

$101.5K • Personal Injury

PA • 2014-03-04

In the case of Galarza v. Szalczyk, Ernesto Galarza, a U.S. citizen, was detained for three days in Lehigh County Prison, Pennsylvania, based on an immigration detainer issued by federal authorities. Despite posting bail and informing jailers of his citizenship, Galarza was held due to the detainer, which was later found to be issued without valid basis. The Third Circuit Court ruled that immigration detainers are non-binding requests, and local authorities may be held liable for wrongful detentions resulting from such detainers. This landmark decision clarified that states and localities are not obligated to honor federal immigration detainers, affirming that they can be held legally responsible for detaining individuals without probable cause. ()

Sources:
aclu.org

$101.1K • Personal Injury

CA • No Date

The case of "Guido v. Patel, et al." involves a legal dispute between the plaintiff, Guido, and the defendants, Patel and others. The specific details of the case, including the nature of the claims, the court's decision, and the verdict date, are not readily available in the provided search results. Without access to the full case documents or more detailed information, it is challenging to provide a comprehensive summary of the case.

$100K • Personal Injury

No State • No Date

I couldn't find any information on a legal case titled "Holloway v. Golightly, et al." It's possible that the case is not widely documented or may be known under a different name. If you have more details about the case, such as the jurisdiction, year, or specific legal issues involved, please provide them, and I'll do my best to assist you further.