Headline News

Case Summaries

Admiralty

[06/25] Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker
In an action brought against Exxon for economic losses resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, a circuit court ruling remitting the punitive damages award to $2.5 billion is vacated and remanded for further reduction where: 1) the Court was equally divided on the question of whether a shipowner may be liable for punitive damages without acquiescence in the actions causing harm, and thus the circuit court's opinion is undisturbed on the issue; 2) federal statutory law does not bar a punitive award on top of damages for economic loss; but 3) the award in this case should be limited to an amount equal to compensatory damages, or approximately $500 million.

[06/25] Evergreen Int'l, S.A. v. Norfolk Dredging Co.
In a suit under admiralty arising out of the allision between a container ship and a submerged dredge spoil pipeline located outside a federally marked navigational channel, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) findings of comparative fault were not clearly erroneous; 2) the court did not err in failing to afford plaintiff the benefit of a Pennsylvania Rule; 3) plaintiff could not prevail on its argument that defendant was not entitled to a damages cap under the Oil Pollution Act since they failed to prove that defendant violated a federal regulation such that it could invoke the Pennsylvania Rule; 4) the finding of comparative fault assigning the defendant ten percent of the fault was not erroneous; and 5) defendant's argument alleging miscalculation of its damages cap was moot since there is no reason to overturn the finding that defendant was ten percent at fault.

[06/04] People v. Laborde
In a prosecution for drug possession, denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence is affirmed over claims that a search of his stateroom on a cruise ship by a customs officer, after the ship docked at the conclusion of a foreign cruise, was conducted without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in violation of Fourth Amendment. Although the underlying search in the present case was defensible as a "routine border search", wherein reasonable suspicion was not required, there may be circumstances under which the search of a passenger cabin at the border might be deemed non-routine.

More...

Commercial Law

[07/02] Deckers Corp. v. US
In a suit contesting the proper classification of three styles of sports sandals under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, a decision holding that the merchandise was properly classified under subheading 6404.19.35 is affirmed where the sandals at issue have open toes and open heels, and lack the features of the named exemplars of 6406.11.80, and thus the imported goods are not classifiable under that subheading notwithstanding their claimed status as athletic footwear.

[07/02] Cavin v. Home Loan Ctr., Inc.
In a suit involving a mailer sent by defendant announcing its mortgage program and claiming that defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to present plaintiffs' with a firm offer of credit, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the letter at issue presented a firm offer of credit, despite the absence of some material terms and the minimal number of consumers who obtained the loan; and 2) thus, defendant did not violate the FCRA.

[06/30] Waltrip v. Kimberlin
In a priority dispute between competing liens, by a judgment creditor and debtor's attorney, over settlement proceeds, judgment finding the judgment lien had priority over the attorney lien is reversed and remanded where: 1) the creditor had a lien which did not cover commercial tort claims while the settlement proceeds at issue stemmed from commercial tort claims; 2) the attorney lien was created by the retainer agreement between plaintiffs and counsel, and it was created before creditor filed a notice of lien in the pending action; and 3) the notice of lien did not relate back to prior liens, as those liens covered different property.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[07/03] Sherman v. Winco Fireworks, Inc.
In an action arising from an accident with fireworks, order granting defendant-fireworks manufacturer leave to amend and remand for a new trial on the plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claim in addition to plaintiff husband's pendent consortium claim is reversed in part where: 1) the district court did not apply the good-cause standard in ruling on motion to amend; 2) and the district court abused its discretion in allowing the amendment; 3) and the error was not harmless as it significantly affected plaintiffs' claims.

[07/02] Anderson v. Commerce Construction Services, Inc.
In an action for negligence arising out of a Nebraska subcontractor's employee's injuries while performing demolition work in Kansas, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) Kansas courts would have applied the lex loci delicti choice of law rule whereby the state where the tort occurred governs the merits of the litigation; 2) Kansas courts have only applied section 185 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws to cases dealing with subrogation; and 3) application of section 184's most significant relationship test would result in defendant prevailing.

[07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.

More...