Publications
The court found that the plaintiff had no triable issue of material fact to support a claim of gross negligence against the defendant fitness facility.
The plaintiff claimed she burnt her arm on a heating element within a sauna when she tripped and fell due to poor lighting.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
Appellate Division finds that the plaintiffs lacked the requisite attorney-client relationship to pursue a legal malpractice action against the attorney defendants.
The plaintiffs, Tara and Aniello Novembre, filed a first action against the New Jersey Nets alleging personal injuries while attending a Nets home game in January 2005.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
An employer is not liable for failure to accommodate if the employee is responsible for the breakdown of the interactive process.
In December of 2022, the Eleventh Circuit examined an ADA claim filed by Charles Cooke against his former employer, Carpenter Technology Corporation.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
Trial court rules in favor of homeowners regarding statute of repose defense raised by residential builder.
The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas recently rejected the defendant’s efforts to prevail on summary judgment based upon Pennsylvania’s construction statute of repose, 42 Pa. C.S. Section 5536.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
Investors awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages pursuant to California Code, Civil Code - CIV §3294.
A group of senior investors alleged causes of action, including elder abuse and unsuitability, with respect to purchases of non-traded real estate investment trusts, Moody’s National REIT II and mutual funds, including the Apollo Institutional Inc
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
Brokers-dealer’s motion to dismiss expungement granted based on six-year rule for industry disputes.
In an expungement case brought by a registered representative against his former broker-dealer, the respondent broker-dealer's Pre-Hearing Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FINRA Rule 13206 (Six-year Eligibility Rule for Industry Disputes) was granted
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
District court finds that whether suit is filed before or after the invocation of the appraisal process is not determinative of the insured’s right to fees.
After receiving a homeowner’s claim for hurricane damage, the defendant investigated the claim and sent the insured its estimate and coverage determination letter.
Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
The U.S. Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to give a verbal warning to fleeing suspect before using a police dog under 42 USC section 1983.
While tracking a fleeing suspect with a leashed police dog, the officer chose not to shout a verbal canine warning to the suspect.
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provi
Two recent Ohio appellate opinions regarding express waivers may create conflict and end up before the Ohio Supreme Court.
There have been two influential cases regarding sporting releases in Ohio in the last several months.
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.
10th District Court of Appeal challenges the response time for a motion to dismiss.
The appellate court held that the trial court prematurely granted a motion to dismiss because it did not wait the full 28 days allowed by Rule 15(C).
Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers.