National News & Case Coverage

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[07/08] US ex rel K&R Limited P'ship v. Mass. Hous. Fin. Agency
In an action brought under the False Claims Act alleging that defendant knowingly submitted excessive claims for mortgage subsidy payments, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to make a minimum showing that defendant knowingly made false claims, acted in deliberate ignorance or acted in reckless disregard.

[07/08] Sigler v. Am. Honda Motor Co.
In a diversity suit arising under the Tennessee Products Liability Act (TPLA), summary judgment for defendant-Honda is reversed where: 1) circuit case law clearly prohibited consideration of unsworn letters from various experts for Honda; and 2) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish the existence of genuine issues of material fact regarding whether an airbag in her vehicle was defective and caused her injuries.

[07/07] Hysten v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co.
In a mechanic's action raising a claim of retaliatory discharge under Kansas law, rulings and awards for plaintiff based on a jury's finding that defendant-railway retaliated against him for reporting a work-related injury that might have led to a future claim under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) are affirmed where defendant's challenges to the jury verdict and to an award of prejudgment interest lacked merit.

More...

Consumer Products

[06/19] Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
In a class action against DaimlerChrysler alleging that it breached express and implied warranties and committed fraud in the sale of certain Dodge Neon cars containing defective head gaskets, dismissal and summary judgment rulings for defendant are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to allege that his Dodge Neon failed to perform as expressly warranted; 2) an implied warranty claim failed as plaintiff was not in vertical privity with DaimlerChrysler as required by state law; 3) thus, state law and the Magnuson-Moss Act claims were properly dismissed; 4) the statute of limitations barred a fraud claim; and 5) an Unfair Competition Law claim failed as defendant's conduct was not unfair within the meaning of the statute, and there was insufficient evidence that the gasket's failure rate was material to a reasonable consumer.

[06/13] Natural Answers, Inc. v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
In a trademark infringement case involving claims against defendants for the advertisement of certain health products, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the record unequivocally demonstrated that plaintiff did not own a valid trademark interest for claims of infringement brought under the Lanham Act; 2) plaintiff did not suffer injury for prudential standing to assert a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act; and 3) in light of plaintiff's insufficient interest and lack of judicial standing, plaintiff's claims also failed under alternative common law theories which require elements plaintiff could not prove.

[05/27] Gerlinger v. Amazon.com Inc.
In an antitrust action challenging a marketing agreement between the booksellers Amazon.com and Borders, dismissal of the action is affirmed where plaintiff lacked standing because he did not show that he ever purchased an item for a higher price than he would have paid had there been no marketing agreement, and thus he had suffered no injury-in-fact.

More...