Appeals court held that in a land valuation trial for the trial court to allow each party to call one expert witness, and refuse the request of one party to call two additional witnesses to address the same matter, was reasonable and within the discretion of the court.
(Updated November 2010)

Appeals court held that a federal district court, in order to have personal jurisdiction over defendant named in a defamation suit, must show that the matter took place in the state in which the court is located or that there is some other specific tie to that state.
(Updated October 2010)

A judicial panel that rules on complex litigation determined the federal district court in eastern Louisiana would be the most appropriate location to centralize the scores of suits filed to date arising from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
(Updated October 2010)

Appeals court held that a restaurant, being sued for serving too much alcohol to a driver who was involved in an accident, need not reveal information about its income. Since a criminal act by the drunk driver was the primary cause of the injury, the restaurant may be sued for compensatory damages only.
(Updated September 2010)

Missouri appeals court held that a business owner in Missouri, subject to attack on a website devoted to attacking the business, could sue the website owner for libel in state court in Missouri. The libel was directed at a Missouri resident doing business in Missouri and was read by people in Missouri, thereby establishing jurisdiction in Missouri.
(Updated September 2010)

Appeals court held that for a federal court to have jurisdiction in a class action suit with parties from multiple states, at least one member of the class must claim an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000 or the class fails for purposes of federal jurisdiction.
(Updated September 2010)

Federal appeals court held that a judgment rendered in Hawaii in 1995 had expired in 2005 after its 10 year statute of limitations for enforcement, but since the judgment had been registered in Illinois in 1997, it could be enforced for ten years after that date of registration, in Texas and in other states.
(Updated June 2010)

Federal court dismissed suits brought against Lebanese banks accused of providing financial services for a terrorist organization in Lebanon that assisted in that organization killing and injuring people in Israel. Federal and state requirements for long-arm jurisdiction were not met.
(Updated March 2010)

Appeals court in Oklahoma held that the standards for class action: numerosity; typicality; commonality; and common questions of law and fact, were met in a case involving a defective bumper claim against VW covering Jettas made over a several year period.
(Updated February 2010)

Appeals court affirmed that the exposure of a social security number in a document filed as part of litigation did not violate the right of the party whose number was exposed. The document was relevant to the litigation, so its filing is accorded absolute privilege.
(Updated February 2010)

Appeals court held that an attorney fee much larger than the damages recovered can be justified. The court listed twelve factors to be considered in awarding attorney fees in suits where federal law allows the prevailing party to collect from the losing party.
(Updated November 2009)

Appeals court held that the state of Arizona does not recognize a claim for negligent spoliation of evidence by a third party. Hence, when a hospital negligently lost material from a surgery needed as evidence in a malpractice case, the hospital could not be sued.
(Updated November 2009)

Texas high court held that when a party demanded the right to have forensic experts copy a company’s hard drives in an effort to search for evidence, the imaging could be allowed only under stringent controls that protect proprietary information from exposure.
(Updated November 2009)

Florida appeals court held that a foreign corporation could not sue a New York university in Florida court for an alleged tort. None of the activities occurred in Florida, and the university’s activities in Florida, including a website and alumni association, were not sufficient contact to form personal jurisdiction.
(Updated September 2009)

Appeals court held that a federal district court properly refused to remove a class action suit from state court to federal court. Federal law allows removal if the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Defendant failed to show that much was likely to be at stake, so the suit will be heard in state court.
(Updated August 2009)

Appeals court held that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over a foreign corporation owned by Americans that advertises in the U.S., for injuries suffered by a client while on vacation at a resort owned by the corporation, when the client went on a fishing trip run by another foreign corporation.
(Updated August 2009)

Mississippi high court tossed out the verdict by a judge in a case where the judge was shown to be very hostile to one party in the case, whom he ruled against. Such hostility meant there could not be a fair trial, a violation of federal and state due process. There would be a new trial before a different judge.
(Updated June 2009)

Maine high court held it improper for a default judgment to be issued against an out-of-state defendant who had not been located. Publication of notice in a local newspaper in Maine was unlikely to reach defendant as he was presumed to be out of state.
(Updated June 2009)

Idaho buyer bought a car over eBay from a seller in Indiana who delivered it to a shipping company in Indiana for delivery. When the buyer was unhappy with the car and refused to pay, the seller sued. Indiana appeals court held that Indiana courts had personal jurisdiction over the Idaho resident.
(Updated May 2009)

Appeals court held that when a buyer of merchandise on eBay is in one state and the seller is in another state, the courts in the state of the buyer do not have personal jurisdiction over the seller in the event of a dispute about the deal.
(Updated April 2009)

Appeals court held that defendant’s request to change venue from one federal court to another would be granted since all factors favored the other location; there was no tie to the venue where the case was filed except that the plaintiff chose that court.
(Updated February 2009)

Alabama appeals court held that the default judgment of a trial court in plaintiffs’ favor was void. The summons had not been sent to the registered business address of defendant and the signature on the receipt from delivery was illegible. That is inadequate evidence of proper service.
(Updated February 2009)

A party involved in a traffic accident, who claimed the other driver was using a laptop at the time of the accident, has the right to request tests of the laptop to check for usage, but the privacy interests of the laptop owner must be secured in the use of the laptop in the discovery process.
(Updated February 2009)

Washington high court held that the tolling of the statute of limitations may be halted due to the inability of the plaintiff to comprehend the matter involved. Whether the plaintiff was incapacitated is a factual matter that may be determined at trial.
(Updated January 2009)

Maine high court held that a suit filed for tort claims, which asked for damages in law, must be tried in district court, not in probate court. While the dispute was over probate of an estate, probate courts do not have jurisdiction over tort damage cases.
(Updated January 2009)

North Dakota high court held that in a dispute over the value of estate assets, it was not appropriate for the trial court to use equity powers to require one party to buy the other party’s share of the estate. The property could be sold to the public if the parties could not agree on division of the assets.
(Updated October 2008)

Appeals court held that when a doctor allowed his attorney to share his patient records with prosecutors, a later claim of attorney-client privilege to protect the documents was invalid. Once the evidence was voluntarily shared, it cannot be pulled back.
(Updated October 2008)

Texas high court held that the court had no jurisdiction over a proposed class action suit involving ten million affected parties who are alleged possible victims of a claimed product defect that has not shown harm to date. Such remote prospective cases will not be accepted.
(Updated July 2008)

Appeals court held that a claim against a company that provided some law enforcement administrative services for a District Attorney could proceed as the company was not protected by sovereign immunity.
(Updated July 2008)

Utah high court held that things that are within the common knowledge of jurors do not need expert testimony to be proven at trial. While technical matters require such testimony, less sophisticated matters do not.
(Updated July 2008)

Appeals court held that a novel application of a regulation would require a plaintiff to file a complaint with the relevant regulatory agency for determination of the application of the regulatory scheme to the question involved, rather than allow the trial court to resolve a matter of regulatory importance.
(Updated June 2008)

Nevada high court held that in a case that contained both matters of equity and of law, the trial court could split the matters and hold a bench trial on the equity issues and then later have a jury trial on the matters of law.
(Updated June 2008)

Indiana high court applied a balancing test to a request for a defendant’s trade secret by a plaintiff. Since the plaintiff failed to clearly establish that information in the secret was necessary to make their argument, access would be denied.
(Updated June 2008)

Appeals court held that sovereign immunity must be clearly waived by the government for there to be a right to sue. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act does not discuss waiver of immunity, so there is no right to sue a government agency for alleged violation of the Act.
(Updated May 2008)

Ohio high court held that trial judges have the authority to use their discretion, given the totality of a trial, to order a verdict stricken in favor of a new trial. If the judge finds sufficient abuse in the trial process that likely tainted the verdict, a new trial is proper.
(Updated April 2008)

Nevada high court held that an emergency-room physician was qualified to give expert testimony about the standard of care that should have been provided by a nurse in an emergency room. The fact that the doctor was not a nurse did not mean he was not an authority on the care expected.
(Updated April 2008)

Texas high court held that claims by plaintiffs’ attorney that defendants actions were like Nazi murders were not only improper but were incurable, meaning the verdict must be reversed and a new trial ordered.
(Updated February 2008)

Appeals court refused to allow a new trial when a defendant provided evidence, after a trial, that it was told a witness was paid to testify and that the cause of an accident was not as claimed. Because defendant failed to diligently uncover the evidence before trial, it could not complain after.
(Updated February 2008)

California high court held that it was improper for a trial judge to simply order a new trial when the losing party requested one, without providing a justification for the order based on evidence of the grounds for a new trial, in this case, jury misconduct.
(Updated October 2007)

Appeals court held that parents had no standing to sue the makers of alcoholic beverages for advertising their products and, thereby, encouraging children to buy such products. There was no showing of harm to their children and no possible remedy.
(Updated October 2007)

Maine high court held that a firm in interstate commerce from another state has the right to make use of state courts for litigation without any specific approval to do business in the state as a condition of using the state courts.
(Updated February 2007)

Indiana high court held that in cases of vehicle accidents, the county in which the accident occurred is the preferred venue for a trial results from the accident, rather than the home county of the plaintiff.
(Updated January 2007)

Federal judge dismissed a suit against various state judges who were alleged to have violated constitutional rights of the plaintiff. Absolute judicial immunity applies whenever judges are acting in the official capacity of their office.
(Updated October 2006)

Appeals court held that a patient suing a health care provider had waited until after the statute of limitation expired to pursue the suit. Since she was aware of the alleged problem, there was no excuse for waiting so long to file, so the cause of action was lost.
(Updated July 2006)

Texas high court held that a jury verdict about tire failure caused by a production defect could not stand as it was based on unreliable expert testimony. The testimony was speculation as it was the opinion of the witness. There was no scientific evidence or theory to back up the conclusions of the witness.
(Updated July 2006)

Rhode Island high court held that the work product of an expert witness is protected from discovery the same as the work product of an attorney. Underlying factual materials used in analysis by the expert is subject to discovery.
(Updated April 2006)

Appeals court held that while Congress granted state courts jurisdiction over suits that arise under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for unsolicited faxes, that did not eliminate federal court jurisdiction in cases of diversity of citizenship.
(Updated April 2006)

North Dakota high court held that a corporation must be represented by an attorney in all legal proceedings in court. Actions undertaken by non-attorneys on behalf of the corporation are void..
(Updated March 2006)

Judge dismissed a suit filed against another judge claiming violation of constitutional rights by dismissing a suit. The court dismissed the complaint holding that federal judges have absolute judicial immunity.
(Updated February 2006)

Plaintiff sued fast food restaurant for violations of access rules for wheelchairs. Court dismissed suit since plaintiff lived almost 600 miles from the restaurant and was unlikely to be there again. The law requires imminent injury from violations.
(Updated February 2006)

Appeals court held that Illinois courts had jurisdiction over a Delaware trust that was originally created by Illinois residents to hold business interests in Illinois. Under the long-arm statute, the out-of-state trust was subject to Illinois court jurisdiction.
(Updated November 2005)

Maine high court held that when service by mail does not conform to state standards, there has been no service to notify the party of the action and the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the party not served.
(Updated August 2005)