Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Law Alerts

State
Practice Area
Keyword

Pages

Burden of proof.
New Jersey • Product Liability • January 11, 2013
The plaintiffs appealed dismissal of their product liability suit at the close of their case. The panel affirmed, finding that the plaintiffs' expert rendered net opinions regarding two alleged defects. The plaintiffs' expert's..., Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
Employer's suspension of benefits upheld because claimant voluntarily accepted retirement package in which he agreed he was not under duress, was able to work and was not disabled.
Pennsylvania • Workers' Compensation • January 11, 2013
The claimant sustained an acknowledged work injury on September 7, 2005. In May 2006, as a member of the union, the claimant attended a meeting addressing the employers' plan for attrition of the workforce. After the meeting, he accepted a..., Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
Fair Labor Standards Act settlements must be approved by a court or by the Secretary of Labor in order to be deemed effective.
Federal • Employment Law • January 11, 2013
The plaintiffs filed a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging the employer failed to pay him and other hourly workers overtime compensation and alleging that he was not paid for hours actually worked. After the lawsuit..., Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to add a bad faith claim was granted where defendant failed to show it would be prejudiced as a result.
Delaware • Insurance Coverage/Bad Faith Litigation • January 11, 2013
NOTE: Opinion has not been released for publication. Until released, it is subject to revision or withdrawal.   Before the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle was the plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to add a bad faith claim..., Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
Strict Liability.
New Jersey • Product Liability • January 11, 2013
The plaintiff was employed by the Atlantic City Streets Division. He was injured while cleaning a spreader attached to a salt truck. The plaintiff sued Thiele Manufacturing (truck manufacturer) on a strict liability theory. Also, the plaintiff sued..., Case Law Alert - 1st Quarter 2013
Employer medical facility or hospital can remain vicariously liable for an employee-physician who is dismissed pursuant to the statute of limitations.
New Jersey • Health Care Liability • October 1, 2012
In this medical malpractice suit, a deceased patient's family sued a hospital and medical group, along with four physicians it employed, for wrongful death and medical malpractice. One of the doctors moved to dismiss the complaint based upon an..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012
Appellate court seeks instruction from Supreme Court as to whether an estranged husband who intentionally directed that title be issued in his name as co-owner may avoid liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine.
Florida • Automobile Liability • October 1, 2012
Following a fatal collision, the appellant's personal representative filed an action against a drunk driver and appellee, the deceased-driver's estranged husband. The driver and the husband separated in 1999. In 2003, after the conclusion of..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012
The defense may retain plaintiff’s treating physicians as expert witnesses.
New Mexico • Health Care Liability • October 1, 2012
In this suit on behalf of several hundred plaintiffs against Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. for alleged injuries caused by medical devices, the Appellate Division concluded that a physician’s treatment of a plaintiff cannot bar the..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012
An owner of a vehicle, who prevails over a tow truck company for failure to comply with notice requirements and to make a good faith effort to determine and locate the owner, is not entitled to recovery of vehicle.
Florida • Automobile Liability • October 1, 2012
In a suit brought by the appellee owner of a vehicle against the appellant towing company, alleging conversion and civil theft arising out of the towing of the vehicle, the trial court granted a motion for vehicle release filed by the owner. The..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012
Use caution when asking for a jury instruction in a medical battery/lack of consent claim.
Pennsylvania • Health Care Liability • October 1, 2012
The Supreme Court affirmed that the jury charge given in a medical battery/lack-of-consent claim, which included "intent to cause harm" language, in its entirety, clearly and accurately set forth in the law. However, the Court suggested..., Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2012

Pages

© 2013 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1

Please read the following disclaimer:

Thank you for your interest in our firm. The information contained on this Website contains statements, videos and other content about the type and quality of services offered by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, as well as past results and testimonials about the firm. This information has not been reviewed nor approved by the Florida Bar.

  • The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the matters in which results and/or testimonials have been provided.
  • All results of cases handled by the firm are not provided and not all clients have given testimonials.
  • The results and testimonials provided are not necessarily representative of results obtained by any individual attorney or by the firm nor of the experience of all clients or others with the firm. Every case is different, and each client's case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits.


Please acknowledge that you have read the above disclaimer by clicking on one of the two links below.

YES I have read and understand the above statements. I am interested in learning more about Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. NO I do not want to view the information.

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."