Category Archives: Summary judgment

If You Sign A Waiver To Play Sports, Have You Agreed To Assume The Risk If You Get Hurt?

06 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by in Litigation, Recent Links and Articles, Sports Law, Summary judgment, Torts

≈ Comments Off on If You Sign A Waiver To Play Sports, Have You Agreed To Assume The Risk If You Get Hurt?

Tags

, , , , ,

Judge Gibbons Grants Summary Judgment Based on Waiver Form and Assumption of Risk in Football Injury Case, by Daniel E. Cummins, Tort Talk

http://www.torttalk.com/2016/02/judge-gibbons-grants-summary-judgment.html

With the Super Bowl on the horizon comes the case of first impression of Feleccia v. Lackawanna Coll., No. 12-CV-1960, 2016 WL 409711 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 2, 2016 Gibbons, J.), in which Judge James A. Gibbons of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas was faced with the issue whether two junior college students who were injured at a preseason football practice were barred from recovering against the college because both signed waivers of liability prior to their injuries. . . .

Continue reading →

Fifth Circuit Reverses District Court On Termination of Temporary Employees.

24 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Employment Law, Litigation, Summary judgment, Workers' Compensation, Wrongful Termination

≈ Comments Off on Fifth Circuit Reverses District Court On Termination of Temporary Employees.

Tags

, , , , ,

Fifth Circuit Reverses Western District for Making Credibility Determinations, by Thomas J. Crane, San Antonio Employment Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nk7tmln

In Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor Inc. and Manpower of Texas, LP, No. 14-50944 (5th Cir. 8/10/2015), the Fifth Circuit overruled the district court’s summary judgment. The court addressed a frequent issue, who is responsible for the termination of temporary employees? But, in so doing, the higher court also addressed a more frequent issue, how to apply the summary judgment standard. . . .

Continue reading →

“Read Receipt” Email Message Is Not Hearsay.

17 Friday Apr 2015

Posted by in Admissibility, Authentication, Evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence, Hearsay, Litigation, Summary judgment

≈ Comments Off on “Read Receipt” Email Message Is Not Hearsay.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Court Rules that Automatically Generated Read Receipt is Not Hearsay: eDiscovery Case Law, by Doug Austin, eDiscoverydaily

http://tinyurl.com/ozbratn

In Fox v. Leland Volunteer Fire/Rescue Department Inc., 7:12-CV-354-FL. (E.D.N.C. Mar. 10, 2015), North Carolina District Judge Louise W. Flanagan ruled that a Read Receipt automatically sent from the defendant’s email address to the plaintiff (when the defendant opened an email sent by the plaintiff) was not hearsay.

Case Background

In this wrongful termination case, the court was considering the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as well as the defendants’ motion to strike certain exhibits attached to plaintiff’s brief in opposition to summary judgment for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) & (e). One of the items that the defendants sought to exclude was a read receipt sent from defendant Grimes email address to plaintiff, triggered when an email plaintiff sent defendant Grimes was opened, arguing that the Read Receipt was ‘unauthenticated hearsay’.

Judge’s Opinion

Judge Flanagan made a swift ruling on this issue when she stated ‘Defendants’ argument fails. The Read Receipt is not hearsay.’ . . .

Continue reading →

Duty to Defend In Insurance Case.

05 Thursday Feb 2015

Posted by in Duty to Defend, Insurance Law, Litigation, Motion in Limine, Summary judgment

≈ Comments Off on Duty to Defend In Insurance Case.

Tags

, , , , ,

Duty to Defend Not Effected by Denial of Motion for Summary Judgment, by Barry Zalma, Zalma on Insurance

http://zalma.com/blog/duty-to-defend-not-effected-by-denial-of-motion-for-summary-judgment/

Defense Can’t Be Avoided by Use Of Limine Motions

The duty to defend owed by an insurer is very broad and requires an insurer to defend even if there is only a potential for coverage on the facts of the case and the policy wording. Usually, an order denying a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that there is no duty to defend will usually be sufficient to reveal the potential for coverage and a requirement for defense – at least under a reservation of rights – to those insured. In McMillin Companies, LLC v. American Safety Indemnity Company, — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2015 WL 270034 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 1/22/15) the right to claim no duty to defend will still exist even after a motion for summary judgment is denied if the motion order is not dispositive of the claims made by the motion for summary judgment. It also criticized the use of a motion in limine (to limit testimony allowed at trial) when it had the effect of a motion for summary judgment without the protections of a motion for summary judgment. . . .

Continue reading →

Casino Valet Service Not Liable For Returning Car To Intoxicated Driver.

08 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Damages, Litigation, Pennsylvania Superior Court, Summary judgment

≈ Comments Off on Casino Valet Service Not Liable For Returning Car To Intoxicated Driver.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

No Liability for Valet Service for Returning Car to Visibly Intoxicated Patron, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://www.torttalk.com/2014/07/no-liability-for-valet-service-for.html

In its recent decision in the case of Moranko v. Downs Racing LP, 2014 Pa.Super. 128 (Pa. Super. June 24, 2014 Panella, J., Mundy, J., and Platt, J.)(Op. by Panella, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that Pennsylvania law does not impose a duty upon a casino’s valet service to withhold the keys from a motorist if that person appears to be visibly intoxicated. . . .

Can A Prisoner Get An Expert Witness Under Federal Rule 706 For His Medical Condition?

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Criminal Law, Evidence, Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 706, Summary judgment

≈ Comments Off on Can A Prisoner Get An Expert Witness Under Federal Rule 706 For His Medical Condition?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Is There a Doctor in the House?: 11th Circuit Remands After Lower Court’s Erroneous Rule 706 Ruling, posted by Colin Miller, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/n57dzzo

This post discusses an Alabama District Court’s and 11th Circuit Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rule of Evidence in a prisoner’s lawsuit in which he claims that he has Hepatitis C, his illness is not being treated and, without treatment, he will become sicker and die. -CCE

Federal Rule of Evidence 706(a) provides that:

On a party’s motion or on its own, the court may order the parties to show cause why expert witnesses should not be appointed and may ask the parties to submit nominations. The court may appoint any expert that the parties agree on and any of its own choosing. But the court may only appoint someone who consents to act.

As you can see from the language of Rule 706(a), there is nothing in the Rule’s text limiting expert appointment to either criminal or civil cases. So where did that leave the plaintiff in Gillentine v. Correctional Medical Services, 2014 WL 701575 (11th Cir. 2014)?