Today "defendant
" News and Relevant News on "defendant
" as Parts
Keyword: defendant
Century Park Law Group - centuryparklawgroup.com
News Center
In Memoriam Erik Jayme (1934-2024)
With great sadness did we receive notice that Erik Jayme passed away on 1 May 2024, shortly before his 90th birthday on 8 June. Everyone in the CoL and PIL world is familiar with and is probably admiring his outstanding and often path-breaking work as a global scholar. Those who met him in person were [â¦]HCCH Monthly Update: April 2024
Meetings & Events From 8 to 12 April 2024, the Working Group on Parentage / Surrogacy met for the second time. Pursuant to its mandate, the Working Group continued its consideration of draft provisions for one new instrument on legal parentage generally, including legal parentage resulting from an international surrogacy agreement. More information isThe European Parliament’s last plenary session & Private International Law
This post was written by BegA1/4m Kilimcio?lu (PhD researcher), Thalia Kruger (Professor) and Tine Van Hof (Guest professor and postdoctoral researcher), all of the University of Antwerp. During the last plenary meeting of the current composition of the European Parliament (before the elections of June 2024), which took place from Monday 22 until Thursday 24 [â¦]Ficticious service still active outside Europe
With the EU Service Regulation being active for more than 20 years, and the Hague Service Convention being ratified by almost all European countries, there is little space for practicing fictitious service of proceedings in Europe. However, for service to third countries outside Europe, and especially to continents, such as Africa, Asia, and the Middle [â¦][Out Now!] New Open Access Book on Corruption and Investment Arbitration: Nobumichi Teramura, Luke Nottage and Bruno Jetin (eds), Corruption and Illegality in Asian Investment Arbitration (Springer, 2024)
CfP: 5th German Conference for Young Researchers in Private International Law (14/15 Feb 2025 in Heidelberg)
On 14 and 15 February 2025, the 5th Conference for Young Researchers in PIL will take place at Heidelberg University. It will be dedicated to the topic of âDigital transformation and Private International Law. Local connections in boundless spacesâ and feature a keynote speech by Christiane Wendehorst (University of Vienna). After statute theory, Savignyan PIL [â¦]Cross-border enforcement of judgments against states a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction guide
TheApplication of Singaporeas new rules on service out of jurisdiction: Three Arrows Capital and NW Corp
Application of Singaporeas new rules on service out of jurisdiction: Three Arrows Capital and NW Corp The Rules of Court 2021 (aROC 2021a) entered into force on 1 April 2022. Among other things, ROC 2021 reformed the rules on service out of jurisdiction (previously discussedCall for papers workshop Collective Actions on ESG
For a workshop on collective actions on ESG toics that will take place in Amsterdam on 21 and 22 November 2024 a call for paper has been posted, deadline 1 July 2024. As a follow-up from the 4th International Class Action Conference in Amsterdam, 30 June â 1 July 2022, the University of Amsterdam, Tilburg [â¦]Pax Moot Court and Half day conference on Dispute Resolution in Private International Law
On Tuesday 23 April theKlocke v. University of TX at Arlington
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The Texas Citizens Participation Act does not apply to diversity cases in federal court.Lopez v. Bartlett Care Center, LLC
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant, a skilled nursing facility, appealed an order denying its petition to compel arbitration for claims of negligent, elder abuse and wrongful death. The trial court found that the claims were not arbitratable because there was no arbitration agreement between Defendant and the decedent.Stephens v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In a claim of negligence for secondary exposure to asbestos, the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient cause. The panel held that in the context of asbestos claims, the substantial-factor test requires ademonstrating that the injured person had substantial exposure to the relevant asbestos for a substantial period of time.aJones v. US
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. An injury suit under general maritime law failed because causation evidence was scant and the injured party couldn't prove that grease on a ship deck caused him to slip and fall.Churchman v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued Defendant for a slip and fall accident in the BART station on the theory that the train operator owed a heightened duty of care under Civil Code section 2100. The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds that Defendant had no liability for accidents that did not occur on the train. The appeals court agreed also holding that section 2100 does not apply to minor commonplace hazards in a train station.Branom v. Diamond
(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed appeal. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to an expedited jury trial process pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 630.01. As part of the expedited process, the parties agree to waive the right to appeal. Plaintiff sought to appeal the amount of the damages award, but by executing the consent to expedited jury trial she voluntarily waived her right to appeal.Huerta v. City of Santa Ana
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs are the parents of three girls who were killed by a speeding motorist while they crossed the street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiff brought an action against the City of Santa Ana claiming that the crosswalk qualified as a dangerous condition on public property. The appeals court did not find a dangerous condition or any peculiar condition that would trigger an obligation by the City.Fuller v. Department of Transportation
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was injured in a head-on traffic accident that he alleged was partially caused by a dangerous road condition. The jury found that a dangerous condition existed but it was not a reasonably foreseeable risk that this kind of incident would occur. The appeals court agreed and affirmed the judgment in favor of the Defendant. Moore v. LA Department of Public Safety
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed. The substitution of the guardians of the children of a deceased man discovered a year after the filing of a wrongful death action by his mother was proper despite the substitution occurring after the statutory limitations period. The substitution relates back to the date of the initial complaint.Martinez v. Walgreen Company
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Walgreens was not responsible for third parties injured on the road by a customer of the pharmacy who was negligently given someone else's prescription. They did not owe a tort duty of care to third parties.Voris v. Lampert
(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Plaintiff successfully brought an action against Defendant for contract-based and statutory remedies for nonpayment of wages. On appeal Plaintiff sought to hold Defendant personally liable under a theory of common law conversion. The appeals court held that such a conversion claim is not the appropriate remedy.Baughman v. Hickman
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the case of a man who alleged a constitutional violation related to his injuries while in custody, the dismissal of all federal claims for failure to state a claim affirmed, as was the decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a Texas law claim. In Re: Deepwater Horizon
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The magistrate judge and district court properly denied the claims of a group of fishermen to a portion of the punitive damages settlement granted to a class of claimants alleging harm as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill because the court was bound to precedent, the plain language of the settlement, and a deferential standard of review.Capitol Services Management v. Vesta Corp.
(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's dismissal of a tort claim as time barred was in error because at the motion to dismiss stage dismissal for statute of limitations is only possible if the plaintiff's claims are conclusively time barred on the face of the complaint.Doe v. McKesson
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Petition for rehearing granted. A lawsuit by a police officer hit by a thrown object during a protest against Black Lives Matter was properly dismissed, but his suit against the protest organizer should have been permitted to proceed.Pina v. County of Los Angeles
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed judgment on the verdict and remand for new trial. Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against Defendant for injuries suffered in a bus accident. The jury found for Plaintiff but awarded minimal damages on the belief from an expert testimony that future surgery would not be required. The court awarded Defendant costs and attorney fees under CCP 998. Plaintiff appealed on the grounds that the expert testimony exceeded the scope of permissible impeachment. The appeals court agreed and ordered the trial court to vacate its order on the post-trial motions. Timm v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit arising from a terrible motorcycle accident that alleged defects in the tires and helmets involved failed because the plaintiffs didn't present admissible expert testimony to support their claims.Smith v. Ogbueh
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff is an indigent, self-represented prison inmate pursuing a medical malpractice claim. The trial count denied Plaintiffas request for the appointment of counsel and granted Defendantas motion for summary judgment. The appeals court directed the trial court to conduct further proceedings on Plaintiffas right of access to the courts and right to appointment of counsel and to vacate the order granting the motion for summary judgment. People v. Superior Court
(California Court of Appeal) - Denied District Attorneyas writ of mandate to declare Senate Bill No. 1391 unconstitutional. Juvenile offender, T.D., shot and killed someone when he was 14. The DA filed charges against T.D. directly as an adult. While the case was pending, Proposition 57 was passed to eliminate the DAas ability to charge minors 14 or younger as adults. Later, SB No. 1391 was passed that prohibited transfers of 14 -15 year-olds to criminal court. The Appeals court found that SB No. 1391 was not unconstitutional and that it was consistent with the intent of Prop 57.Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a homeowner, attempted a mortgage loan modification with Defendant, but when Plaintiff fell behind in payments, Defendant foreclosed. Plaintiff sued for negligence. The trial court sustained Defendantas demurrer on the grounds that no tort duty is owed on contracts. The appeals court held that a lender does not owe a borrower a duty to offer, consider, or approve a loan modification.Page took 4 seconds to load.
Home Page