Legal News & Case Summaries

News

Construction

[05/09] Georgia-Pacific to Distribute First Quarter 2008 Financial Information On May 15
[05/09] Norcraft Holdings, L.P. and Norcraft Companies, L.P. Report First Quarter 2008 Results
[05/09] Formaldehyde-Free Sheathing Provides Health and Energy Advantages for Builders and Owners
[05/09] Preformed Line Products Announces Financial Results for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2008
[05/09] Huntsman Releases 2008 First Quarter Results

More...

Litigation

[05/09] ArcelorMittal sues Esmark over aborted steel mill sale
[05/09] Government asks court to block wider testing for mad cow
[05/08] Oil companies agree to settle MTBE contamination lawsuits
[05/08] Dan Rather files amended lawsuit against CBS over his firing
[05/07] More than $11.5M awarded to Florida residents in citrus case

More...

Employment Practices

[05/09] Diageo brews Irish Guinness overhaul
[05/09] GM to pay up to $200M to help end American Axle strike
[05/08] Jobless claims post sharp decline
[05/08] Dan Rather files amended lawsuit against CBS over his firing
[05/08] Congressman seeks probe of Utah mine collapse

More...

Personal Injury

[05/09] Drugs, teens, pot are dangerous mix
[05/09] 77 more hepatitis cases may trace to clinic, officials say
[05/09] Tornado knocks vehicles around in N. Carolina, kills 1
[05/09] Plame seeks to resurrect lawsuit in CIA leak case
[05/08] Minn. gov signs bill to pay bridge collapse victims

More...

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

103 Eisenhower Pkwy - Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 403-9000 Fax: (973) 403-9021

From our offices in Roseland, we serve clients throughout New Jersey, including Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, Paterson, Morristown, Hackensack, Livingston, Short Hills, South Orange, West Orange, Millburn, Hanover, as well as Essex County, Hudson County, Passaic County, Morris County, and Bergen County.