Plaintiff Elizabeth Conte developed a serious and irreversible neurological condition. She alleges her condition is due to her long-term consumption of a generic prescription drug, and that the warnings provided by the manufacturers of the drug failed to adequately warn of known dangers resulting from its long-term use. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all the manufacturers. Ju

The plaintiff, Cue Associates, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendant, Cast Iron Associates, LLC. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly applied the statute of limitations found in General Statutes § 52- 577 to bar the plaintiff’s trespass claim, when the defendant did not plead this statute of limitations as a special defense. We agree wi

John Okros sued his former employer, Angelo Iafrate Construction Company (“Iafrateâ€�), in federal district court, claiming a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq., and asserting direct evidence of that violation. This direct evidence — as relayed by Okros and three witnesses who listened on a speaker phone to Okros’s end of a telephone conversation â

{1} Plaintiff-Appellant’s motion for rehearing is granted. The opinion filed in this case on June 6, 2008, is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted in its place.

{2} The question presented in this case is whether, under New Mexico law, the requirements for a valid rejection of uninsured motorist (UM) and/or underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage have been met when a business

Appellants, Chad Poole and Terry Fendley, filed this interlocutory appeal after the trial court issued a temporary injunction prohibiting them from subsequent employment in the gold coin industry for a period of three years. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 2008). We hold that, while the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a temporary injunction to pre

Elizabeth J. Louviere and Kevon M. Louviere appeal the summary judgment granted in favor of Hearst Corporation, Hearst Newspapers Partnership, II, L.P., d/b/a Beaumont Enterprise, Craig Stark, and David Pero. The Louvieres contend the trial court erred in granting judgment for the defendants on Elizabeth Louviere's Sabine Pilot claim of wrongful discharge. See Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 6

This case involves the allegedly faulty construction of a bulkhead. After a bench trial, the court rendered a take-nothing judgment against the plaintiff, who then appealed. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Thomas L. Tarbox contracted with Dave Thomson, doing business as Waterside Construction and Engineering, to build a steel bulkhead on Tarbox's waterfront lot located on Lake Livingston in

Plaintiff Venture Properties, Inc., (Venture) brought this action against defendant Jeff Parker, alternatively seeking damages for breach of contract or rescission of the contract. Plaintiff alleged as separate claims breach of contract, mutual mistake, intentional misrepresentation, and innocent misrepresentation. On the mutual mistake and innocent misrepresentation claims, plaintiff sought resci

¶1 Simon D. Chalpin (“Chalpin�), and Hi-Health Supermart Corporation (“Hi-Health�) appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of their aiding and abetting claim against J. Kevin Snyder (“Snyder�) and his law firm, Robin, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP (“Robin Kaplan�), pursuant to Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Chalpin and Hi-Health also appeal from the trial court’s en

Plaintiff Pamela Thompson and her four children (collectively “Thompson�) sued defendants for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and various provisions of state law. The district court dismissed Thompson’s Section 10(b) claim with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Aft

¶ 1 Appellants, Richard G. Phillips (“Phillips�) and Richard G. Phillips Associates, P.C. (“Phillips Associates�), appeal from the order dated June 5, 2007 denying Appellants’ motion to reconsider the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of all Appellees.1 After an exhaustive review of the evidentiary record, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 2

The defendant/third-party plaintiff, Morton Machine Works, Inc. (Morton), appeals from the Superior Court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the third-party defendants, Robin Rug, Inc. (Robin) and Bristol Yarn Corp. (Bristol Yarn) (collectively third-party defendants), and the denial of Morton’s crossmotion for summary judgment. Morton also appeals from the Superior Court’s

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., (collectively, "the Banks") appeal the granting of a temporary injunction in a suit brought against the Banks by Huntsman Corporation. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 2008). We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the temporary injunction. Accordingly, we affirm the tria

Ann Casstevens and her husband (1) were defrauded by their neighbors, Roger and Natalie Carroll, when they bought the Carrolls' house. Even though the Casstevenses paid the Carrolls $34,000 in cash and executed a note for $90,000 to the Carrolls and received a warranty deed, they were not informed that the Carrolls still owed two debts on the house--an original note to a bank for $88,800 and a sec

Sylvia L. and Santos R. Hernandez (Sylvia and Santos) purchased a “new� 2000 Chevrolet Impala from Smith Chevrolet (Smith). When the Impala’s transmission failed, Sylvia and Santos learned that the Impala was a used vehicle, and the transmission had been previously replaced. Sylvia and Santos sued Smith and now appeal the summary judgment granted in favor of Smith contending that the trial c

Plaintiff Ymelda T. Patrick appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the court sustained defendant Alacer Corporation’s (Alacer) demurrer to her third amended complaint without leave to amend. Plaintiff asserted shareholder derivative and direct causes of action against Alacer and three individuals who sit on its board of directors and serve as trustees of the trust that is its sole re

¶1 Following two incidents in 2002, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (the “DABC�) found Due South, Inc. (“Due South�) liable for three statutory violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. Due South appeals. Challenging, among other issues, the definition of “intoxication� as applied to Utah Code section 32A-12-216 (2001) by the DABC Commission (the “Commission�)

¶1 Following two incidents in 2002, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (the “DABC�) found Due South, Inc. (“Due South�) liable for three statutory violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. Due South appeals. Challenging, among other issues, the definition of “intoxication� as applied to Utah Code section 32A-12-216 (2001) by the DABC Commission (the “Commission�)

¶1 The Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA) charged respondent, Richard F. Berger, with one count of neglect of a client matter and misrepresentation of such to the client and to the Bar Association, in violation of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 3.2, 8.1 and 8.4(c), of the Rules of Professional Conduct, (ORPC), 5 O.S.1991 Ch. 1, App. 3A and Rules 1.3 and 5.2 of the Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.

Noble Systems Corporation sued Alorica Central, LLC, Pandora Select Partners, LP, and Whitebox Advisors, LLC (doing business as Pandora Select Partners, LP)1 for tortious interference with a business relationship, fraud and intentional and negligent misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy to defraud Noble and convert its property. Noble also sued Alorica for replevin. Base

The Constitution protects everyone, the poor, the wealthy, the weak, the powerful, the guilty and the innocent. This court has held its guarantees extend to lawyers (Cunningham v. Superior Court (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 336); dogs (more precisely their owners), (Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Department of Animal Regulation (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 372); and even politicians (Beilenson v. Superior C

Class action plaintiffs filed a consumer protection action against GTE California Inc., now known as Verizon California, Inc. (Verizon), in October of 2000, alleging Verizon engaged in unfair business practices by improperly billing residential customers for rented telephone equipment. In August of 2004, the parties entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Verizon agreed to make cash

In this appeal, appellant Roberta West seeks reversal of a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of appellee Clifford Hamilton. In doing so, she presents two points of error in which she asserts: 1) the trial court erred in granting its judgment; and 2) appellee was not entitled to assert a defense of limitations to her suit. For reasons later stated, we reverse the judgment and remand the cause

Sylvia L. and Santos R. Hernandez (Sylvia and Santos) purchased a “new� 2000 Chevrolet Impala from Smith Chevrolet (Smith). When the Impala’s transmission failed, Sylvia and Santos learned that the Impala was a used vehicle, and the transmission had been previously replaced. Sylvia and Santos sued Smith and now appeal the summary judgment granted in favor of Smith contending that the trial c

This is the latest in a series of lawsuits pursued by the plaintiff, David M. Somers, to collect an amount allegedly owed by the defendant, John M. Chan. In this appeal, we must decide whether the trial court correctly determined that the defendant was not liable for legal fees of $75,000 allegedly incurred by Lynn Chan, the defendant’s former wife, and claimed by the plaintiff, her former attor