FOR PUBLICATION We consider in this case whether § 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), completely preempts a state-law action for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, quantum meruit and estoppel. Because the state-law claims could not be pursued under § 502(a)(1)(B), and because they rely on legal duties that are inde

This case involves the liability of an insurance agency for negligence in advising on, procuring and maintaining an insurance package for a new business venture that did not include workers compensation insurance. The lack of workers compensation insurance was discovered after an employee was injured in a catastrophic fire during the third year of business operations. After a lawsuit in which the

In eight issues, appellants Texas Specialty Trailers, Inc., J. Marvin Williams, Jr., and Richard Kellerman d/b/a JK Trucking appeal a judgment rendered on a jury verdict awarding appellee Jackson & Simmen Drilling Company approximately $3.2 million in damages. We affirm in part, reverse and render in part, and reverse and remand in part.

I. Bac

The central issue in this case is whether, in the absence of a controlling decision by the U.S. Supreme Court and in the face of divided federal precedent, a Maryland court is bound to apply a contractual choice-of-law clause that has the effect of interpreting federal law in a manner inconsistent with a decision of the Court of Appeals of Maryland. We conclude that it would be contrary to the fun

The plaintiff,1 Dennis W. Byars, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendants, Connecticut Condo Connection and Cathy Luciano.2 The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that his claims are precluded under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following undisputed facts and procedural hi

The plaintiff, Robert Somers, twice applied for full-time employment with Converged Access, Inc. (CAI), but neither application resulted in a job offer. He later agreed to work for CAI on a temporary basis as an "independent contractor." After CAI terminated his contract and did not respond to his third application seeking permanent employment, the plaintiff filed suit in the Superior Court agains

S.A.A.T. Systems Application of Advanced Technology, Ltd. and Daiwa Products, Inc. (collectively “SAAT”) appeal the denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) after a jury found that SAAT willfully infringed U.S. Patents No. 5,012,813 (“the ’813 patent”), No. 6,047,205 (“the ’205 patent”), and No. 6,292,685 (“the ’685 patent”) and awarded lost profit

Plaintiff First American Title Insurance Company (First American) sought a declaration that it had no duty under its title insurance policies to defend or indemnify defendant XWarehouse Lending Corporation formerly known as Access Lending Corporation (Access). 1 The trial court issued the requested declaration after ruling that Access was not an insured entitled to coverage under the policies. We

Prestige Valet, Inc. (Prestige) appeals a final order denying its motion to set aside a settlement agreement Prestige entered with Louis J. Mendel (the Prestige- Mendel agreement) and an order enforcing the settlement agreement and awarding Mendel attorney’s fees. We reverse and conclude the trial court erred in requiring Prestige to file a motion to set aside a codefendant's settlement agreemen

TRG Night Hawk Ltd., TRG Night Hawk, Inc., and The Related Companies of Florida (collectively TRG) appeal an amended final judgment entered in favor of Registry Development Corporation (the Buyer) on its negligent misrepresentation and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claims. Because the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying TRG's motion for a directed verdict, we reverse

¶1 In this case, we must determine the scope of a settlement agreement between Michael Bodell and his company Bodell Construction Company (collectively, “Bodell”), on the one hand, and Marc Jenson and his company MSF Properties (collectively, “Jenson”), on the other. More specifically, we must determine whether Bodell and Jenson intended their settlement agreement to settle only the claim

Firm clients Bruce and Dianna Herschend received a successful outcome in a business dispute over the Branson-based themed attraction "The Butterfly Palace," when a jury found in favor of the entrepreneurial couple in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Southern Division, yesterday. Lathrop & Gage attorney Joseph Reid (Business litigation & Tort litigation - Springfield) s

Plaintiff-Appellant Charles W. Campbell, appearing pro se,1 appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction over Campbell’s appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

I

In June 2000, Campbell filed suit in the federal district court in the District of Kansas against his former employer De

An employer sued a former employee and his ex-wife for damages it incurred when the employee embezzled a substantial sum from the employer. The ex-wife now appeals that portion of the judgment rendered against her, arguing that the court’s findings are insufficiently specific for appellate review, that the complaint did not plead fraud with sufficient particularity, that the court should not hav

Real estate investors sued for two alleged breaches of the investors’ right of first refusal regarding a parcel of real property. The first arose from the proposed transfer of a twenty-five percent interest in the property to a third party in exchange for a twentyfive percent interest in a business to be operated by a the third party on the property. The second arose from the later actual transf

James Huch and Ryan Carstens filed a class-action lawsuit in St. Louis County alleging that Charter Communications illegally charged many of its customers a separate fee for a paper television-channel guide that the customers did not request. Charter moved to dismiss, asserting that the voluntary payment doctrine prohibited the court from ordering Charter to refund the money it charged, and custom

Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc. and David York1 appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of their insurer, Assurance Company of America, on their claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Custom Hardware, a corporation with its principal place of business located in Fenton, Missouri, provides service and maintenance

Plaintiff Elizabeth Sanchez was a high-ranking employee of the County of San Bernardino (the County), widely regarded as a “rising superstar.” Among her other accomplishments, she negotiated a labor contract with the Safety Employees Benefits Association (the Association), the labor union responsible for representing sheriff‟s deputies. Thereafter, however, she and James Erwin, the president

Steven Teitelbaum (Teitelbaum) and Los Angeles Coin Company LLC (L.A. Coin Company) appeal from an order of the trial court directing respondents Indra and Mary Jhaveri, doing business as Kant-Sar International (the Jhaveris), to execute and deliver to appellants a partial satisfaction of the judgment entered in this case.

The Jhaveris previously obtained a jury verdict against appellants a

Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc. and David York1 appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of their insurer, Assurance Company of America, on their claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Custom Hardware, a corporation with its principal place of business located in Fenton, Missouri, provides service and maintenance on computer e

James Huch and Ryan Carstens filed a class-action lawsuit in St. Louis County alleging that Charter Communications illegally charged many of its customers a separate fee for a paper television-channel guide that the customers did not request. Charter moved to dismiss, asserting that the voluntary payment doctrine prohibited the court from ordering Charter to refund the money it charged, and custom

Ronald Bacon appeals the dismissal of his breach-of-contract and fraudulentmisrepresentation claims against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) on the ground of forum non conveniens. We reverse and remand.

I.

Bacon’s suit against Liberty Mutual arises out of the settlement of a personal injury lawsuit against Ridgetop Holdings, Inc. (“Ridgetop”), the parent

This case presents our first opportunity to examine the substantive requirements necessary to establish a claim under the whistleblower-protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. Plaintiffs Shawn and Lena Van Asdale appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of their former employer, International Game Technology (“IGT”), on their claim of retaliator

The plaintiff, Marta Valdovinos, as parent, guardian, and next friend of Daniel Valdovinos ("Daniel"), appeals from an order of the circuit court dismissing both counts of her fifth amended complaint against the defendants, Dr. Tadanori Tomita and Children's Memorial Hospital ("Children's Memorial"). For the reasons which follow, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court and remand for further

This litigation has a long and complicated history. The eleven claimants (the “Plaintiffs”) include Arthur and Glenda Creech, Darlene Reinier, Vicki Sue Jacobs, Joann Wolfe, Claude and Deborah Hatfield, Wayne and Alice Martin, and Brent and Marvin Chitwood, Jr., the latter two of whom were doing business as Triad Partners.1 Years ago, each of the Plaintiffs invested in an illfated real estate