News

Case Summaries

Admiralty

[03/10] Fortis Corp. Ins. SA. v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS
In a maritime shipping case involving a claim for rust damage to steel coils caused by exposure to seawater during a journey from Poland to Ohio, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) a ship manager charged with providing a Master, officers and crew, and performing various other ship-management tasks for the shipping vessel does not qualify as a "carrier" under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and thus the COGSA's one year-statute of limitations does not bar the underlying suit; and 2) defendant's claim that the district court's finding of negligence was based on clearly erroneous factual findings is rejected.

[02/25] Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co. v. Seaway Marine Transp.
In an admiralty action seeking recovery of repair costs and lost profits against a cargo ship after it struck a land-based coal-loading machine operated by plaintiff, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of summary judgment as to liability is reversed as there is a genuine dispute of fact over plaintiff's comparative negligence; and 2) district court's rejection of plaintiff's lost-profits claim is affirmed as plaintiff did not adequately disclose the basis of its lost-profits claim.

[02/22] Cianbro Corp. v. George H. Dean, Inc.
In an in rem maritime lien action, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and an order issuing a declaratory judgment to the effect that plaintiffs' vessels were not subject to a maritime lien in favor of defendant is affirmed as defendant failed to make the factual showing that it provided necessaries to the vessels as is required by 46 U.S.C. section 31342(a).

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[03/12] Holschen v. Int'l. Union of Painters
In an action by a former union painter against the union alleging several violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), as well as a state law claim for intentional interference with a valid business expectancy, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) this was not a situation where the circumstances themselves presented a significant danger of bias such that plaintiff was excused from presenting at least some evidence of actual bias involving one or more trial board members in order to survive summary judgment; 2) evidence of ad hoc retaliation by an individual union member did not state a cause of action for a free speech violation under the LMRDA; and 3) there was no evidence the union itself formally disciplined plaintiff in retaliation for his exercise of free speech rights.

[03/12] Alexander v. Cahill
In a First Amendment challenge to attorney advertising rules issued by the New York Appellate Division barring, inter alia, testimonials from clients relating to pending matters, portrayals of judges or fictitious law firms, attention-getting techniques unrelated to attorney competence, and trade names or nicknames that imply an ability to get results, and establishing a thirty-day moratorium for targeted solicitation following a specific incident, including targeted ads on television or in other media, summary judgment order invalidating most of the content-based restrictions and upholding the thirty-day moratorium is affirmed in part where the content-based restrictions in the disputed provisions regulated commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the prohibition on advertising mentioning fictitious firms was valid because it targeted potentially misleading advertising; and 2) as to the moratorium, there was a substantial state interest in protecting the privacy and tranquility of personal injury victims and their loved ones against intrusive, unsolicited contact by lawyers.

[03/11] Granfield v. CSX Transp., Inc.
In plaintiff's action against his employer in violations of the Federal Employer's Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Ac, claiming that he developed "tennis elbow" as a result of having to manipulate defective controls in the cabin of his locomotive, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a reasonable jury could have concluded that plaintiff's claim was not time barred, had defendant chosen to contest this showing by asking the jury instruction and arguing the matter to the jury; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a doctor as an expert on the issue of causation; 3) brief statements by a witness as to the contents of a letter was harmless error; and 4) plaintiff's counsel's statements in closing arguments were adequately dealt with by the district judge's instructions and no plain error occurred.

Read More