This appeal involves a suit brought by real estate agent, Jose L. Pruneda, to recover commissions from appellants, UL, Inc., d/b/a Urban Living and George Silaski arising from the sale of two pieces of real property. The trial court rendered summary judgment for monetary damages and attorney’s fees in favor of Pruneda against Urban Living and Silaski.

On appeal, Urban Living a

¶1 Plaintiff Susan Olsen contests the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant University of Phoenix (Phoenix). We affirm.

¶2 Although Olsen and the trial court characterize the determinations of the trial court as "findings," we recognize that there are no true findings properly made at the summary judgment stage.

[A] challenge to a summary judgment presen

The dispositive question presented by this appeal is whether § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, preempts Plaintiffs’ state-law claims asserted against the National Football League (“NFL”) and the National Football League Players’ Association (“NFLPA”). Because Plaintiffs’ claims arise from or are substantially dependent upon an interpretation

Angela Brescia and Duane Brescia (the “Brescias”) sued Slack & Davis, L.L.P., and attorney Donna Bowen (collectively, “Slack & Davis”or “the law firm”) for negligence, deceptive trade practices, and breach of fiduciary duty in the handling of the Brescias’ underlying medical-malpractice lawsuit. The trial court denied the Brescias’ motion for entry of a discovery-control plan (Leve

On November 13, 2006, Richard Kimmel applied for a $500,000 life insurance policy from Western Reserve Life Assurance Company and paid an initial premium. In return for his application and payment, he received a conditional receipt. Both Richard’s applica2 tion and the conditional receipt contained a clause that expressly terminated after 60 days any life insurance coverage provided by the compa

Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate) and Wayne Watson, an Allstate attorney, seek review of an order denying their motion for partial summary judgment. Allstate and Watson argue that an action in tort for spoliation of evidence may only be maintained where evidence is permanently lost or destroyed, not when evidence is only concealed from the complaining party. We hold that the tort of fraudulent

Since the 1800s, lessors of real property in Washington

have been able to recover damages for the tort of waste. In this case, however, the

Court of Appeals interpreted our jurisprudence on the economic loss rule and

concluded that lessor Linda Eastwood was limited to contractual remedies for the

damage done to her horse farm by lessee Horse Harbor Foundat

The trial court granted summary judgment dismissal of a

homeowner's negligence claims against two construction contractors whose

allegedly negligent installation of a waterline for the previous owner caused a

landslide, damaging the landscaping and house. We reverse. This is not a

negligent construction case where the economic loss rule would apply and

No

¶1 The petitioner, Layton M. Perry, Jr., was disbarred on March 11, 1997, and did not seek rehearing of the decision. State ex rel. Okla. Bar Ass'n v. Perry, 1997 OK 29, 936 P.2d 897. Thus, his disbarment was effective on March 11, 1997. Perry now seeks reinstatement to membership in the Oklahoma Bar Association (OBA). The OBA opposes Perry's petition for reinstatement. The issue presented is whe

Lonnie and Terry Pool sued Orkin, Inc. on a negligent misrepresentation theory claiming that they entered into a contract with Orkin in 1997 for routine treatment after a terminate infestation was discovered in the home. The discovered extensive termite damage in 2005 to the home's structure, which required significant renovations and the couple to move out for months.

Keshav S. Joshi, M.D. (“Plaintiff”) appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in favor of defendants Jonathan Ries (“Ries”) and Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, P.C. (“SPvG”) (collectively “Defendants”). In his first two points on appeal, Plaintiff claims that the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis erred in denying Plaintiff’s application for chang

[¶1.] When Bryan and Kayla Jacquot experienced water problems in their basement, they initiated this action against the prior owners of their home, James and Karen Rozum, and the parties’ limited real estate agent, Stephen Peschong, an employee of Mitchell Realty, LLC. The trial court granted the Rozums’ motion for summary judgment on the Jacquots’ fraud, deceit, and fraudulent misrepresent

Appellant Julia Carole Gunn appeals from the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment on all of her claims in favor of the appellees, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Truck Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, Mid-Century Insurance Company, Farmers New World Life Insurance Company, and Farmers Insurance Company (collectively known as Farmers), and Farmers Group Incorporated (FGI). We affirm.

Wayne and Susan Vanderwier (“the Vanderwiers”) appeal the trial court‟s judgment in favor of Joshua and Stephanie Baker (“the Bakers”) on the Bakers‟ claims for fraud arising from the Bakers‟ purchase of the Vanderwiers‟ home. Concluding that trial court properly entered judgment in favor of the Bakers, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

After listing their h

In 2004, the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned Kimberly Sykes’s and Tevya Urquhart’s convictions for the state crimes of “Larceny by Conversion” and “False Report of a Felony” on the grounds that their convictions were based on mere “speculation” and “layers of impermissible inferences.” After their release from prison, Sykes and Urquhart (“the Plaintiffs”) brought 42 U.

Appellants, Lee and Pamela Shafer, appeal from the trial court’s judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of appellees, Joel and Maryann Gulliver, on their claim for breach of contract. The trial court awarded the Gullivers specific performance, interest damages, and attorney’s fees. The Shafers challenge the trial court’s judgment in three issues. We affirm, in part, and reverse and

Linda Darrow appeals the trial court's posttrial order denying her motion for attorney's fees following her successful defense of a lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Heitman. Ms. Darrow sought fees as a result of two proposals for settlement that she had previously filed in this action. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Ms. Darrow had not satisfied the specificity requirement of Florida

{1} In virtually all claims sounding in tort, our common law permits punitive damages where appropriate to punish outrageous conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future.

Similarly, in New Mexico all labor unions owe a common-law duty of fair representation (also referred to herein as “DFR”) to their members and are subject to suit for breach of that duty. In the case at bar, we a

Michael L. Levine (Michael) and his wife Victoria Levine (Victoria) (collectively the Levines) filed this action on their own behalf, and on behalf of a putative class, against Blue Shield of California (Blue Shield). In five causes of action in their first amended complaint, the Levines brought claims for fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good

This appeal calls upon us to determine whether Pennsylvania law imposes upon a shipper a duty of due care to safely secure the goods the shipper has loaded in a third-party carrier’s tractor-trailer. The District Court, concluding that Pennsylvania law did not impose such a duty, awarded summary judgment in favor of the shipper, The ESAB Group, Inc. (“ESAB”), and against the carrier’s inju

Richard and Karen Shook, husband and wife, filed suit against Avaya, Inc., Richard‟s former employer, alleging a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1104 and 1132. The Shooks contended that Avaya breached its fiduciary duty owed to them as participant and beneficiary under the Avaya Pension Plan through a series of misleading letters regarding

Appellant Famous Horse, Inc., operates a chain of clothing stores in the New York
18 area called V.I.M. that sell name-brand jeans and sneakers for relatively low prices.
19 Appellees offered to supply several clothing stores, including V.I.M., with Rocawear
20 brand jeans at a discounted price. After purchasing jeans from Appellees in 2006, V.I.M.
21 discovered that the jeans were

Carmen Saenz and Robert Bennett, Jr. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) sued Jan L. Grandy, James C. Pettit, D.O., Jo Ann Bristol, L.M.S.W., and others (collectively “Defendants”) regarding alleged false statements Defendants made about Plaintiffs just before and then during the aftermath of Saenz’s attempted suicide. Plaintiffs asserted claims for negligent misrepresentation and intentional i

Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment against Appellants Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. (Avery) and in favor of Appellee Shelby Jackson. In six issues, Norris and Avery (collectively, Appellants) contend that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to establish that Avery violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA

Robyn Cagle appeals from the dismissal of her claims against attorneys and an insurance broker. She sought damages based upon the defendants’ alleged failure to timely finalize the paperwork for an annuity contract purchased by her since deceased same sex partner, Shavon Norris, naming Cagle as beneficiary.

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants.