The Exclusion of Other Incident Evidence in Product Liability Litigation
|
|
- Tyrone Francis
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The Exclusion of Other Incident Evidence in Product Liability Litigation By: Elbert S. Dorn and Burl F. Williams Nexsen Pruet, LLC A crucial issue in the successful defense of a product liability case is the exclusion of other incidents and accidents involving products of the manufacturer. In old school parlance, prior incidents were often referred to as other similar incidents or OSI, a term which should be avoided because it presupposes similarity which does not necessarily exist. The specter of other incidents, if not addressed consistently and aggressively throughout the course of the litigation, can transform an otherwise defensible case into a problematic one. The primary defense tool for excluding other incident evidence is the substantial similarity standard. While the concept of substantial similarity is not novel, this article surveys recent case law from various jurisdictions which reinforce this important evidentiary standard. 1 When effectively applied, the substantial similarity test serves as a potent legal basis to resist and limit discovery, to exclude opposing experts, to support motions in limine, and to substantiate exclusion of evidence and even dismissal of claims at trial. Left unchallenged, evidence of other incidents has the real potential to distract the fact finder from proper legal determinations by injecting unrelated and prejudicial facts and allegations of defect which have not withstood proper evidentiary scrutiny. The following summary provides current case law to buttress the assault on other incident evidence. In Graves v. CAS Medical Systems, 735 S.E.2d 650 (S.C. 2012), the South Carolina Supreme Court applied the substantial similarity test in affirming the exclusion of three expert witnesses under South Carolina s expert evidence standard. Graves is instructive in this regard because it demonstrates that the substantial similarity rule can be invoked not only to exclude other incident evidence itself but also to challenge expert testimony that relies on such evidence. Six month-old India Graves died while being monitored by a CAS Medical System product. Graves, 735 S.E.2d at 652. Her parents, Kareem and Tara Graves, filed a product liability lawsuit against CAS, alleging that the monitor was defectively designed and failed to alert them when India s heart rate and breathing slowed. Id. India Graves was a triplet, born premature, and that condition required her hospitalization for 6 weeks. Id. When she was released, the treating physician, as a precaution, instructed the Graves to use the CAS product to monitor the infant s breathing and heart rates. Id. The product included a loud alarm that would sound if the infant were to stop breathing or have any major fluctuations in heart rate. Id. The product incorporated many intricate features and redundant safety measures, including a backup alarm along with a recording system that kept a log of alarm soundings. Id. India died in her sleep while she was hooked up to the system, but, according to the Graves, the alarm never sounded. Id. at 653. Contrary to that allegation, the product s recording system reported that the 1 The authors recognize, and presume that the reader is aware, that some jurisdictions follow a relaxed standard of mere similarity or reasonable similarity when other incidents are offered solely to show notice (when relevant) rather than to prove the existence of a defect. 1
2 alarm did sound. Id. The Graves claims centered on a software design defect theory involving spaghetti code, defined as a condition when computer code becomes unstructured and creates a rather tangled mess. Id. Three experts were utilized to support the Graves theory, initially identifying three potential causes: hardware error, software error, and complaint error. Id. All three experts opined that software error was deemed the most probable cause after the possibilities of hardware and complaint error were ruled out by them. Id. at 654. CAS moved to exclude all three experts, contending that their testimony was not reliable because each relied on reports of other alleged failures to support their conclusion that software error was the cause. Id.at The trial court excluded the three experts and granted summary judgment. The Graves court began its exclusion analysis by acknowledging that an expert, in certain circumstances, can base his conclusion on a form of differential diagnosis that is, by eliminating the likely causes until the most probable one is isolated. Id. at 656. The Court limited the admissibility of a differential diagnosis opinion, however, by holding that the opinion must provide a reasonable, objective explanation for the rejection of possible alternative causes in order for the opinion to be admissible under Rule 702. Id. Based upon that holding, the Court segued into the use of the substantial similarity test. The Graves court noted that the experts improperly relied on [FDA] reports of other failures to bolster their conclusions that software error was to blame. Id. at 657. In reaching that conclusion, the Court articulated the relationship between the substantial similarity test and the requisite reliability of an expert s opinion. It began its analysis with the rule: [e]vidence of other similar incidents is admissible where there is some special relationship between the accidents tending to prove or disprove some fact in dispute. Id. It then turned to the test: [a] plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the products are similar, the alleged defect is similar, the defect caused the other accidents, and there are no other reasonable secondary explanations. Id. Applying this test, the Court noted that [w]hile the products in the FDA report are similar to the one here, the record contains no evidence suggesting any further connection to or whether a software error was even involved in these other cases. Id. The Court concluded that [i]n order to deem these other incidents substantially similar, we would have to automatically equate an alleged failure with a software defect of the kind claimed by the Graves without any evidentiary basis for doing so. Id. The Court stated that it would not make that evidentiary leap. Because the underlying incidents were not proven to be substantially similar, expert opinions based on them were not reliable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the exclusion of the expert witnesses and the granting of summary judgment. The legal underpinning for the Graves decision derives from the significant case of Watson v. Ford Motor Co., 699 S.E.2d 169 (S.C. 2010). The Watson case addressed the application of the substantial similarity test in the context of a sudden acceleration, design defect claim involving a Ford Explorer. The plaintiffs alleged that electromagnetic interference (EMI) caused the Ford Explorer s cruise control to malfunction, resulting in sudden and uncontrollable acceleration of the vehicle. According to the opinion, EMI is an unwanted disturbance caused by electromagnetic radiation that interferes with an electric circuit. Id. at
3 Sonya L. Watson was rendered quadriplegic following the single vehicle rollover accident in her Ford Explorer. Id. A passenger in her vehicle, Patricia Carter, died in the accident. Id. Watson testified that as she entered the interstate, she immediately set the cruise control, and shortly thereafter, the Explorer began to suddenly accelerate. Id. Because of the alleged sudden acceleration, Watson lost control of the vehicle, [and it] veered off the left side of the interstate and rolled four times. Id. Watson and the Estate of Carter ( the Plaintiffs ) brought design defect claims alleging that the Explorer s cruise control system was defective because it allowed electromagnetic interference (EMI) to affect the system. Id. In an effort to bolster their design defect claims, the Plaintiffs sought to introduce evidence of other incidents where a Ford Explorer allegedly accelerated in a sudden or unintended manner. Over the objection of Ford, the evidence was admitted at trial. The jury returned a verdict against Ford, awarding $15 million to Watson and $3 million to the Estate of Patricia Carter. Id. On appeal, Ford argued, among other grounds, that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of other incidents. The South Carolina Supreme Court agreed and established the test later cited in the Graves decision above. In analyzing the other incident evidence, the Court noted that the Plaintiffs introduced a deposition of a former Ford employee who investigated a number of claims of unintended acceleration of Explorers driven in Britain. Id. The former employee testified to an that referenced 35 incidents that have been categorized as unexplainable in which the vehicles suddenly accelerated. Id. The Plaintiffs also presented testimony from three witnesses that had experienced sudden acceleration in their Ford Explorers when their cruise control would not disengage. Id. Based upon its review of that evidence, the Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting it. The Court listed a number of reasons why the other incident evidence did not meet the substantial similarity requirements. First, the products were not similar because most of the other incidents involved Explorers that were made in different years from the Watson Explorer and were completely different models with the driver s seat located on the right side of the vehicle. Id. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to show a similarity of causation between the malfunction in th[eir] case and the malfunction in the other incidents. Finally, honing in on the requirement that the alleged defect be the same, the court noted that the Plaintiffs only presented the testimony of the other drivers and did not present any expert evidence to show that EMI was a factor in the malfunction in the other incidents. Id. Based upon the inadequacies in the other incident evidence, and the Plaintiffs failure to show that the other incidents were caused by the same alleged design defect, the court ruled that the evidence was not relevant: [T]his evidence was not relevant because [Plaintiffs] failed to show that evidence of these incidents made the existence of the EMI defect in this case more probable. Id. at 179. The court also pointed out that this type of evidence is highly and extremely prejudicial, and for that reason, the plaintiff must establish a factual foundation to show substantial similarity. Id. at The Court noted that, counsel highlighted this improper evidence in closing arguments and thereby possibly induced the jury to speculate as to other causes of the accident not supported by any evidence. Id. at 180. Based upon the trial court s error in admitting the other incident evidence, and other evidentiary failures, the Court reversed the judgment for Plaintiffs and entered judgment for Ford. 3
4 In Funkhouser v. Ford Motor Co., 736 S.E.2d 309 (Va. 2013), the Virginia Supreme Court recently addressed the application of the substantial similarity test in the context of a failure to warn claim arising from a vehicle fire. The case is notable in that the Court applied a stringent standard for the admissibility of other incident evidence regarding a failure to warn claim. Emily, the three year old daughter of Steven K. Funkhouser, died after receiving severe burns while playing unattended in the Funkhouser s Ford Windstar. Mr. Funkhouser filed a product liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company for failure to warn of the risk of fire while the vehicle is not in operation. The plaintiffs alleged that the daughter was playing inside the family s 2001 Ford Windstar, while the keys were not in the ignition and the car was turned off. Id. at 311. A fire engulfed the passenger side of the van, and severely burned Emily, which ultimately led to her death. Id. According to plaintiff s expert, the fire was caused by heat energy generated by abnormal and undesired electrical activity within the lower portion of the center instrument panel in the vicinity of the wiring harness, cigarette lighter and the controls for the vehicle s heating and air conditioning system. Id. Further, the expert opined that the source of ignition was most likely electrical activity coming from one of the wires or connectors in that vicinity. Id. He also concluded that Ford possessed information that should have put it on notice that these particular Ford Windstar minivans were unreasonably dangerous for the use for which they were sold. Id. at 311. Funkhouser sought to introduce evidence of seven other Windstar fires, but the trial court excluded the evidence. The evidentiary battleground centered upon the cause of the seven other Windstar fires. The Court noted that, [i]n the present case, all Funkhouser can show is that the incidents occurred under substantially the same circumstances; he cannot show that the fires were caused by the same or similar defects. Id. at 314. Based upon that weakness in the other incident evidence, the Court held that the trial court properly excluded the other Windstar fires. Id. Funkhouser further challenged the trial court s evidentiary ruling, however, by arguing that application of the substantial similarity test to a failure to warn claim actually results in an evidentiary threshold that is higher than what is required to prove the merits of his claim. Id. Funkhouser argued for a relaxed test in a failure to warn claim because liability under a failure to warn claim does not require a showing of any defect, only a showing that the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that its product is dangerous. Id. Accordingly, he argued that the proper test should allow a plaintiff to interchange the words defect and dangerous. After enunciating the substantial similarity test, including its causation prong, the court rejected Funkhouser s argument for a relaxed similarity test and concluded that removing the defect requirement from the causation prong would allow a plaintiff to attribute notice and actual knowledge to a manufacturer based on the mere existence of a generalized danger. Id. The court recited the common rejoinder that a manufacturer is not an insurer of its product s safety. Id. Therefore, in order for the subject evidence to be admissible, the court held that Funkhouser was required to show that the other Windstar fires were caused by the same or similar defect. Id. at
5 Similar to the Graves court s refusal to allow an expert witness to opine that a product s software was defective based upon an FDA report showing similar products had failed, the Funkhouser court tracked the same line of reasoning. It noted that, Funkhouser is asking this Court to invert the test and infer similar causes, i.e., defects, from the existence of similar effects, i.e., fires. Id. at 314. As a matter of logic, the Court noted that [t]his inversion simply does not work: although a faulty cigarette lighter may cause a key-off dashboard electrical fire, not all key-off dashboard electrical fires are caused by a faulty cigarette lighter. Id. Accordingly, the court concluded that the seven prior incidents along with the accompanying expert testimony were properly excluded. Finally, Stokes v. Ford Motor Co., 300 P.3d 648 (Mont. 2013), is a significant case because it demonstrates that the foundational requirement of substantial similarity can serve as a powerful grounds for the exclusion of other incident evidence. In Stokes, plaintiff took an aggressive position with respect to the discovery of voluminous other incident information. The court entertained, but ultimately denied, a motion for discovery sanctions. At the trial of the case, however, the court excluded all of the other incident evidence because the plaintiff failed to provide the proper foundation. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. In Stokes, Peter Andrew Carter, an Australian resident, rented a Ford Explorer while in Montana on business. Stokes, 300 P.3d at 650. On November 7, 2007, while driving on the highway, Carter collided with another car at a speed between 76 and 83 miles per hour. Id. The impact resulted in the vehicle rolling five times over a distance of 286 feet. Id. Carter was partially ejected from the vehicle and killed. Id. Dennis Stokes, the personal representative of the Carter estate, filed a wrongful death and survival claim against multiple defendants. Id. Stokes alleged that the Ford Explorer was defectively designed because a safer design alternative existed to protect the driver during [a] rollover. Id. at 650. Stokes alleged that the subject Ford Explorer should have contained a Safety Canopy System (SCS), which was available three months before the Explorer at issue was manufactured. Id. at Although the SCS was available as an option feature, it was not implemented in the subject Ford Explorer as standard equipment. Id. at 651. At the trial of the case, Stokes sought to introduce other incident evidence that he independently obtained, consisting of a summary compilation of over 3,000 crashes which was offered to establish that Ford had actual notice of Explorer rollovers. Id. at 653. Ford objected to the introduction of the evidence, noting that there has to be some base level showing of substantial similarity for the introduction of this evidence. Id. Stokes failed to provide the foundation that his other incident evidence was substantially similar, and the court excluded the evidence. Id. at The Montana Supreme Court began its consideration of that ruling by noting that [e]vidence of other similar instances may be admitted to show notice or knowledge of the existence of a danger or a defect. Id. at 654. Further, [t]he test of admissibility for evidence of the accidents in a product liability case is whether the circumstances surrounding the product involved in other accidents were substantially the same or similar to the accident at issue. Id. Important to the foundational requirement, the court also stated that [a] concerted effort should 5
6 be made by [the trial] court to allow the admission of evidence of only those accidents where both the product and the circumstances surrounding the accident were similar to the case at bar. Id. Analyzing the evidentiary challenge, the Court noted that Stokes tried to introduce his evidence by presenting a compilation summarizing [the] 3,000 rollover cases and that he sought to provide a foundation for that evidence by introducing the deposition testimony of a Ford representative... in an unrelated case. Id. The court further found that after Ford made its objection to the evidence, Stokes failed to demonstrate that his proposed evidence satisfied the requirement of substantial similarity. Id. The court held that based upon the record before it, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the evidence. Id. Accordingly, a jury verdict in favor of Ford was affirmed. In conclusion, the recent court decisions highlighted above serve as strong pronouncements of the substantial similarity rule in high exposure product liability cases. 2 They provide authority and guidance for mounting an effective legal challenge to other incident evidence in addition to the commonly advanced grounds of hearsay, lack of foundation, judicial economy and undue prejudice. Effective use of the substantial similarity rule from the discovery phase to trial is an invaluable and crucial strategy in the defense of product litigation. 2 Several recent unpublished opinions also provide further insight on application of the substantial similarity requirement. Steede v. General Motors, LLC, 2013 WL (W.D. Tenn. January 11, 2013) ( bald assertions without citation to specific evidence and detailed analysis demonstrating substantial similarity do not suffice ); Buck v. Ford Motor Co., 2013 WL (6th Cir. May 16, 2013) (affirming summary judgment on grounds that other incidents utilized to prove defect were not substantially similar); Paul v. Henri-Line Machine Tools, Inc., 2013 WL (E.D. Mich. March 30, 2013) (holding other incidents were not substantially similar and granting summary judgment). 6
pdf July 2013
https://www.iadclaw.org/assets/publication/professional_liability_february 20131.pdf I suggest the following simple ten ways to avoid malpractice in litigation: q PRODUCT LIABILITY July 2013 IN THIS ISSUE
More informationFROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY Paul M. Peatross, Jr., Judge. Funkhouser, Deceased, brought this products liability action
Present: All the Justices STEVEN K. FUNKHOUSER, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF EMILY N. FUNKHOUSER, DECEASED OPINION BY v. Record No. 111207 JUSTICE ELIZABETH A. MCCLANAHAN June 7, 2012 FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
More informationTHE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court. CAS Medical Systems, Inc., Appeal from Orangeburg County James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Kareem J. Graves and Tara Graves, individually and as duly appointed personal representatives of the Estate of India Iyanna Graves, Appellants, CAS Medical
More informationIRIS GENTRY, ETC., ET AL. OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR. v. Record No June 7, 1996 TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, ET AL.
Present: All the Justices IRIS GENTRY, ETC., ET AL. OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSCOE B. STEPHENSON, JR. v. Record No. 951640 June 7, 1996 TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF
More informationMELDA TURKER, ET AL. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
[Cite as Turker v. Ford Motor Co., 2007-Ohio-985.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 87890 MELDA TURKER, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS vs.
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. The Honorable Edward O. Burke, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MARK R. PIPHER, a single man, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, KENT C. LOO, DDS and JANE DOE LOO, husband and wife, Defendants-Appellees. 1 CA-CV 08-0143 DEPARTMENT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LARRY RIDNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 28, 2003 v No. 240710 Monroe Circuit Court CHARLEY RAFKO TOWNE and CAROL SUE LC No. 99-010343-NI TOWNE, Defendants-Appellees.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ESTATE OF AVA CAMERON TAYLOR, by AMY TAYLOR, Personal Representative, UNPUBLISHED April 13, 2017 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 331198 Genesee Circuit Court DARIN LEE COOLE
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RICHARD HILL, as Next Friend of STEPHANIE HILL, a Minor, UNPUBLISHED January 31, 2003 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 235216 Wayne Circuit Court REMA ANNE ELIAN and GHASSAN
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Evidence And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question While driving their cars, Paula
More information17. Judges Panel Effective Pre-Trial Motions: The How, When, and Why of Motions in Limine
17. Judges Panel Effective Pre-Trial Motions: The How, When, and Why of Motions in Limine Moderator: E. Kyle McNew MichieHamlett, PLLC P.O. Box 298 Charlottesville VA 22902-0298 Tel: 434-951-7234 Email:
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday the 30th day of October, 2009.
VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday the 30th day of October, 2009. Joanna Renee Browning, Appellant, against Record No. 081906
More informationUnftefr j^tate fflcurt ni JVp^^tb
In ike Unftefr j^tate fflcurt ni JVp^^tb No. 14-1965 HOWARD PILTCH, et ah, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, etal, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LARRY KLEIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2016 v No. 323755 Wayne Circuit Court ROSEMARY KING, DERRICK ROE, JOHN LC No. 13-003902-NI DOE, and ALLSTATE
More informationFourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-11-00810-CV Laura CASTILLO and Armando Castillo Sr., Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Armando Castillo Jr., Appellants
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2006 v No. 263852 Marquette Circuit Court MICHAEL ALBERT JARVI, LC No. 03-040571-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSAM OOLIE, HAROLD OOLIE, Davidson Circuit No. 95C Plaintiffs, Hon. Walter Kurtz, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT NASHVILLE SAM OOLIE, HAROLD OOLIE, Davidson Circuit No. 95C-2427 and FRANCES CHAFITZ, C.A. No. 01A01-9706-CV-00240 VS. Plaintiffs, Hon. Walter Kurtz,
More informationPresent: Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Mims, JJ., and Russell and Lacy, S.JJ.
Present: Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Mims, JJ., and Russell and Lacy, S.JJ. CNH AMERICA LLC v. Record No. 091991 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS January 13, 2011 FRED N. SMITH FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
More informationENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO OCTOBER TERM, 2016
Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2016-048 OCTOBER TERM, 2016 State of Vermont APPEALED FROM: Superior
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 13, 1996 D.S. NASH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Present: All the Justices LOIS EVONE CHERRY v. Record No. 951876 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN September 13, 1996 D.S. NASH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMPBELL COUNTY H.
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 114,985 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 114,985 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. OSCAR C. RODRIGUEZ-MENDEZ, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal from
More informationNO. 46,840-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * Versus * * * * * *
Judgment rendered March 14, 2012 Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. NO. 46,840-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * OMEKA
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 23, 2004 ALBERT R. MARSHALL
Present: All the Justices JONATHAN R. DANDRIDGE v. Record No. 031457 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 23, 2004 ALBERT R. MARSHALL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY Gary A. Hicks, Judge
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NANCY BLOEMENDAAL and JAMES BLOEMENDAAL, UNPUBLISHED October 8, 2002 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 234200 Lenawee Circuit Court TOWN & COUNTRY SPORTS CENTER INC., LC No.
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA Z011R496TW FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 2333 MICHAEL GODFREY VERSUS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA Z011R496TW FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 2333 MICHAEL GODFREY VERSUS CITY OF BATON ROUGE PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE Judgment Rendered June 10 2011 1 ryq o On
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:13-CV-529-RJC-DCK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:13-CV-529-RJC-DCK CHRISTOPHER PRACHT, as Personal ) Representative of the Estate of Eric F. ) Lee, ) ) Plaintiff, )
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. JOANNE NEALE, et al., : CIVIL ACTION NO (JLL) Plaintiffs, : OPINION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JOANNE NEALE, et al., : CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-4407 (JLL) Plaintiffs, : OPINION V. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,: etal, Dockets.Justia.com
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,181 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,181 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. WILLIAM PORTER SWOPES, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Shawnee
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 116,816 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. ISIDRO MUNOZ, Appellant, MARIA LUPERCIO, Appellee.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 116,816 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS ISIDRO MUNOZ, Appellant, v. MARIA LUPERCIO, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Ford District Court; SIDNEY
More informationNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION 79 TH Annual Convention & Exhibits
NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION 79 TH Annual Convention & Exhibits Complex Product Liability: The Plaintiff s Perspective of Evaluating and Preparing a Winning Case. LaBarron Boone Kendall C. Dunson Rodney Barganier
More informationJOANN E. LEWIS OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No November 1, 1996
Present: All the Justices JOANN E. LEWIS OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No. 960421 November 1, 1996 CARPENTER COMPANY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND T. J. Markow, Judge
More informationv No Oakland Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PHILLIP PETER ORZECHOWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 20, 2018 v No. 340085 Oakland Circuit Court YOLANDA ORZECHOWSKI, LC No. 2016-153952-NI
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-40387 Document: 00513130491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED July 27, 2015 ERICA BLYTHE,
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District STEVE SAUNDERS, v. KATHLEEN BASKA, Appellant, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) WD75405 FILED: April 16, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PLATTE COUNTY THE
More informationBreaking Legal Developments
Page 1 of Breaking Legal Developments 12-15-2006 Published by: Peter A. Lynch, Esq. of Cozen O'Connor palynch@cozen.com http://www.cozen.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This weekly newsletter covers: 1. 8th Circuit
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 5, 2016 v No. 323247 Ingham Circuit Court NIZAM-U-DIN SAJID QURESHI, LC No. 13-000719-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 11, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 11, 2005 Session CARL ROBERSON, ET AL. v. MOTION INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County No. 02C701 W. Neil Thomas,
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice BRIDGETTE JORDAN, ET AL. OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No. 961320 February 28, 1997
More informationNon-Scientific Expert Testimony in Child Abuse Trials
Non-Scientific Expert Testimony in Child Abuse Trials A Framework for Admissibility By Sam Tooker 24 SC Lawyer In some child abuse trials, there exists a great deal of evidence indicating that the defendant
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1875 Greyhound Lines, Inc., * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Robert Wade;
More informationEvidence Matters: Other Injuries, Accidents, and Complaints in Product Liability Litigation
Evidence Matters: Other Injuries, Accidents, and Complaints in Product Liability Litigation by Paul D. Koethe In today s world of mass-produced consumer products, foods, and pharmaceuticals where manufacturers
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 4, 2004 v No. 245057 Midland Circuit Court JACKIE LEE MACK, LC No. 02-001062-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Frankfort) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***
Case: 3:11-cv-00024-DCR-EBA Doc #: 87 Filed: 11/20/12 Page: 1 of 18 - Page ID#: 2809 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Frankfort KERRY HINKLE, Administrator
More information8:13-cv JMC Date Filed 07/29/16 Entry Number 104 Page 1 of 17
8:13-cv-02311-JMC Date Filed 07/29/16 Entry Number 104 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON DIVISION Deborah Meek Hickerson, Plaintiff, v. Yamaha
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CATHIE PULLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED November 17, 2016 v No. 328202 Genesee Circuit Court CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, LC No. 14-102857-NO Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cv CDL. versus
Case: 17-10264 Date Filed: 01/04/2018 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-10264 D.C. Docket No. 4:15-cv-00053-CDL THE GRAND RESERVE OF COLUMBUS,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No. 16-CV-1396 DECISION AND ORDER
Raab v. Wendel et al Doc. 102 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN RUDOLPH RAAB, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 16-CV-1396 MICHAEL C. WENDEL, et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOSEPH MOORE and CINDY MOORE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED November 27, 2001 V No. 221599 Wayne Circuit Court DETROIT NEWSPAPER AGENCY, LC No. 98-822599-NI Defendant-Appellee.
More informationFILED: NIAGARA COUNTY CLERK 02/15/ :54 PM INDEX NO. E157285/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 7 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/15/2017
STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT: COUNTY OF NIAGARA MARTINE JURON vs. Plaintiff, GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS HOLDING CORPORATION, COMPLAINT GENERAL MOTORS LLC, SATURN OF CLARENCE, INC., now known
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0005 LINDA ALESSI JOSEPH ALESSI JR AND TOMMIE SINAGRA VERSUS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0005 LINDA ALESSI JOSEPH ALESSI JR AND TOMMIE SINAGRA VERSUS BARRIERE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC Al Nit Judgment Rendered
More information#25808-a-LSW 2011 S.D. 89 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA * * * *
-a-lsw 2011 S.D. 89 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ESTATE OF ETHANUEL JAMES HOLZNAGEL, DECEASED, WAYNE D. HOLZNAGEL and PAULA M. HOLZNAGEL, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES, and WAYNE D. HOLZNAGEL,
More informationhttps://advance.lexis.com/pages/contentviewprintablepage.aspx
Page 1 of 5 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188963 Rutstein v. Cindy's Trucking of Ill. Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188963 (Copy citation) United States District Court for the District of Wyoming August 8, 2012,
More informationmatter as follows. NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellant No EDA 2015
IN NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 1 Appellee v. CRAIG GARDNER, THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant No. 3662 EDA 2015 Appeal from the
More informationSTATE V. LEAL, 1986-NMCA-075, 104 N.M. 506, 723 P.2d 977 (Ct. App. 1986) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GRACIE LEAL, Defendant-Appellant
1 STATE V. LEAL, 1986-NMCA-075, 104 N.M. 506, 723 P.2d 977 (Ct. App. 1986) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GRACIE LEAL, Defendant-Appellant No. 7945 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1986-NMCA-075,
More informationREPORTED OF MARYLAND. No. 751
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 751 September Term, 2001 JOSE ANDRADE v. SHANAZ HOUSEIN, ET AL. Murphy, C.J., Sonner, Getty, James S. (Ret'd, Specially Assigned), JJ. Getty, J.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 27, 2017 v No. 331113 Kalamazoo Circuit Court LESTER JOSEPH DIXON, JR., LC No. 2015-001212-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationLAURA MAJORANA OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Present: All the Justices LAURA MAJORANA OPINION BY v. Record No. 992179 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 3, 2000 CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAUQUIER COUNTY H.
More informationMeredith, Graeff, Arthur,
Circuit Court for Montgomery County Civil No.: 413502 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1818 September Term, 2016 TRACY BROWN-RUBY v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND Meredith, Graeff,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2006 v No. 260543 Wayne Circuit Court OLIVER FRENCH, JR., LC No. 94-010499-01 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationQuestion 1. Under what theory or theories might Paul recover, and what is his likelihood of success, against: a. Charlie? b. KiddieRides-R-Us?
Question 1 Twelve-year-old Charlie was riding on his small, motorized 3-wheeled all terrain vehicle ( ATV ) in his family s large front yard. Suddenly, finding the steering wheel stuck in place, Charlie
More informationNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2011 CA 0084 JAMIE GILMORE DOUGLAS VERSUS ALAN LEMON NATIONAL FIRE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY GULF INDUSTRIES INC WILLIAM
More information2018 IL App (1st) U. No
2018 IL App (1st) 172714-U SIXTH DIVISION Order Filed: May 18, 2018 No. 1-17-2714 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DAVID DENMARK, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D04-5107 STATE OF FLORIDA,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
[Cite as Haney v. Law, 2008-Ohio-1843.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO CATHY HANEY, vs. Plaintiff-Appellant, KEITH LAW and SOUTHWEST OHIO REGIONAL TRANSIT
More information2018COA167. No. 16CA0749 People v. Johnston Constitutional Law Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures Motor Vehicles
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY]
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF [COUNTY] [PLAINTIFF], ) CASE NO. ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) PLAINTIFF S MOTIONS IN [DEFENDANT], ) LIMINE ) Defendant. ) MOTIONS Plaintiff moves
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 29, 2002 v No. 235847 Washtenaw Circuit Court JEFFREY SCOTT STANGE, LC No. 00-001963-FH Defendant-Appellee.
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2014 COA 41
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2014 COA 41 Court of Appeals No. 12CA1223 El Paso County District Court No. 95CR2076 Honorable Leonard P. Plank, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007 Opinion filed November 7, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D06-1656 Lower Tribunal No.
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY. CASE No CR
Terri Wood, OSB # Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 0 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 0 1--1 Attorney for Defendant IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR LAKE COUNTY STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
03/02/12 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,
More informationAISHA BROWN, ET AL. NO CA-0921 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * * *
AISHA BROWN, ET AL. VERSUS TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2015-CA-0921 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM FIRST CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS NO. 2014-01360-F,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM LUCKETT IV, a Minor, by his Next Friends, BEVERLY LUCKETT and WILLIAM LUCKETT, UNPUBLISHED March 25, 2014 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 313280 Macomb Circuit Court
More informationPreparing for Daubert Through the Life of a Case
Are You Up to the Challenge? By Ami Dwyer Meticulous attention throughout the lifecycle of a case can prevent a Daubert challenge from derailing critical evidence at trial time. Preparing for Daubert Through
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-3148 United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllplaintiff - Appellee v. DNRB, Inc., doing business as Fastrack Erectors llllllllllllllllllllldefendant
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-20631 Document: 00514634552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RICHARD NORMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant Summary Calendar United States Court
More informationCase 6:13-cv GAP-DAB Document 91 Filed 08/09/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3428
Case 6:13-cv-00434-GAP-DAB Document 91 Filed 08/09/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3428 D.B., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA - ORLANDO DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA;
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Appellee, : No. 08AP-519 (M.C. No TRC ) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Freeman, :
[Cite as Columbus v. Freeman, 181 Ohio App.3d 320, 2009-Ohio-1046.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT City of Columbus, : Appellee, : No. 08AP-519 (M.C. No. 2007 TRC 175312) v. :
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 24, 2012 v No. 279699 St. Clair Circuit Court FREDERICK JAMES MARDLIN, LC No. 07-000240-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 9th day of June, 2011.
VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Thursday, the 9th day of June, 2011. Ellen Marie Rix, Appellant, against Record No. 101737 Court
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. NICOLE SANDERS, Appellee ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Appellant v. NICOLE
More informationv No Wayne Circuit Court LC No DL Respondent-Appellant.
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S In re LINDSEY TAYLOR KING, Minor. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 15, 2018 v No. 336706 Wayne Circuit Court
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF BARRY PLAINTIFF S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF BARRY / THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, Case No. 08-[redacted] SD Hon. Gary R. Holman [redacted], Defendant. PLAINTIFF S MOTION
More informationCase 3:01-cv AWT Document 143 Filed 03/26/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : :
Case 301-cv-02402-AWT Document 143 Filed 03/26/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT PETER D. MAINS and LORI M. MAINS Plaintiffs, v. SEA RAY BOATS, INC. Defendant. CASE
More informationJUNE FISH, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, LIFE TIME FITNESS INC, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV FILED
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationBifurcation of Civil Trials in Trucking Cases
In Search of a Fair Shake By F. Marshall Wall and Dexter M. Campbell III Bifurcation of Civil Trials in Trucking Cases When you and your client believe that bifurcation would prove useful, consider a motion
More informationMOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (Plant or root growth evidence) Defendant,, by and through her undersigned attorney, moves this Honorable
MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (Plant or root growth evidence) Defendant,, by and through her undersigned attorney, moves this Honorable Court to exclude from this cause any testimony or evidence
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 3, 2002 v No. 234028 Wayne Circuit Court PAUL E. MCDANIEL, LC No. 00-000613 Defendant-Appellant.
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN March 5, 2004 GEORGE E. WALLACE
PRESENT: All the Justices MARGARET BARKLEY v. Record No. 030744 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN March 5, 2004 GEORGE E. WALLACE FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF HAMPTON Norman Olitsky, Judge
More informationRecent Decisions COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 17, Number 3 (17.3.45) Recent Decisions By: Stacy Dolan Fulco* Cremer, Kopon, Shaughnessy
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-10615 Document: 00513087412 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT In the Matter of: BERT A. WHEELER, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PASTOR IDELLA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 2, 2016 v No. 323343 Kent Circuit Court NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE LC No. 13-002265-NO COMPANY, and
More informationIn the Court of Appeals of Georgia
FIRST DIVISION ELLINGTON, C. J., PHIPPS, P. J., and DILLARD, J. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed
More informationGENE ROBERT HERR, II OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 15, 2006 FRANCES STUART WHEELER
Present: All the Justices GENE ROBERT HERR, II OPINION BY v. Record No. 051825 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 15, 2006 FRANCES STUART WHEELER FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY Paul
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 Session JEFF MILLER and wife, JANICE MILLER, each individually, and as surviving parents and next of kin of the minor, WILLIAM J. MILLER,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ERIN LEECH, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 11, 2005 v No. 253827 Kent Circuit Court ANITA KRAMER, LC No. 03-006701-NI and Defendant, KENT COUNTY BOARD OF ROAD
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 7 August v. Onslow County Nos. 10 CRS CRS JAMES ERIC MARSLENDER
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS November 4, 2005 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Charles N.
Present: All the Justices SUSIE CAROL BUSSEY v. Record No. 050358 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS November 4, 2005 E.S.C. RESTAURANTS, INC., t/a GOLDEN CORRAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF
More informationFIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D17-2237 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. DENISE LORRAINE HANANIA, Appellee. On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval
More information