Legal News

Case Summaries

Admiralty

[01/12] Bowers v. Whitman
In an appeal from an order of dismissal by the district court, order is affirmed where Oregon's modification of the remedies available under Measure 37 is not a constitutional taking because: 1) any potential property interest that plaintiffs had for compensation or a specific type of land use under Measure 37 had not vested; and 2) Measure 49 does not contravene substantive due process, as it does not implicate fundamental rights or fail rational basis scrutiny.

[12/15] MLC Fishing, Inc. v. Velez
Dismissal for want of federal admiralty and maritime subject matter jurisdiction over fishing vessel owner's complaint seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability pursuant to the Exoneration and Limitation of Liability Act is affirmed where: 1) slip-and-fall accident that took place on a ramp leading from the marina to a floating dock that passengers were required to traverse in order to access the vessel did not occur on or over navigable waters; and 2) the Act did not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

[12/14] F.C. Wheat Maritime Corporation v. US
In an appeal from the district court's award of damages to appellants' in a dispute arising from an allision between a United States Army Corps of Engineers vessel and a private yacht owned by the appellants, judgment is affirmed over appellants' various challenges to the court's determination of damages due them.

[12/13] India Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Kobil Petroleum Ltd.
In a Rule B maritime attachment and garnishment action to secure an arbitration judgment against the charterer of a damaged oil tanker, the district court's order vacating the attachment of a check released to the charterer from the Southern District’s Court Registry Investment System (CRIS) is affirmed, as the CRIS check, which represented the proceeds of electronic funds transfers that are beyond the reach of the district court, is not properly subject to attachment.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[02/21] Dahar v. Holland Ladder & Manufacturing Co.
On a claim under Labor Law section 240(1) brought by a worker injured when he fell from a ladder in a factory while cleaning a product manufactured by his employer, the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the claim, affirmed by the Appellate Division, is affirmed, where the plaintiff was not engaged in an activity the statute protects.

[02/21] Posner v. Lewis
In an action for prima facie tort and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations stemming from pressure and influence exerted by the defendants upon school officials who denied the plaintiff tenure, the order of the Appellate Division denying the defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed, where the absolute immunity from civil liability for instigating official action articulated in Brandt v Winchell, 3 NY2d 628 (1958) could not be extended to protect the alleged course of conduct, which involved blackmail, intimidation and threatening conduct allegedly directed at the plaintiff.

[02/21] Thomas H. v. Paul B.
In a defamation action alleging that the defendants falsely and maliciously stated that the plaintiff had raped and molested the defendants' daughter, the Appellate Division's grant of summary judgment to the defendants is reversed In light of factual discrepancies, where: 1) under the circumstances alleged, a reasonable listener would have understood that the defendants intended to label the plaintiff as a child rapist; and 2) the alleged statements would be actionable even if they were couched in the form of an opinion and even if they were derived from what the defendants' daughter told them.

[02/17] American States Insurance Co. v. LaFlam
In a dispute over whether an insurance company was liable to pay a settlement amount under an uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) policy issued to an injured driver's employer and containing provisions that imposed a three-year contractual limitations period on UM/UIM claims and specified that the limitations period began to run on the date of the accident, the following question is certified to the Rhode Island Supreme Court: In light of the UM/UIM statute and Rhode Island public policy, would Rhode Island enforce the two provisions of the contractual limitations clause in this case?

Read More