Jump To Navigation
  • Daily Business Reviews | 5th Annual Most Effective Lawyers 2009
  • The Best Lawyers In America
  • Top Lawyers

National News & Case Coverage

News

Product Liability

[03/09] Manufacturer expands pet food recall
[03/09] Prius with stuck accelerator glides to safe stop
[03/08] Roche suspends arthritis drug study after deaths
[03/08] Toyota disputes critic who blames electronics
[03/05] Australian court: Vioxx doubled heart attack risk

More...

Personal Injury

[03/09] Superintendent accidentally fires gun during class
[03/09] Park, slain trainer's family want video suppressed
[03/09] Hoped-for drop in childbirth deaths not happening
[03/09] Pa. suit: Bank wrongly repossessed home, took bird
[03/08] UN says mother-child HIV can be eliminated by 2015

More...

Tobacco

[02/24] Anti-smoking ads spark scandal in France
[02/19] Cigarette makers take tobacco fight to high court

More...

CPSC Recalls

[03/04] Risk of Strangulation Prompts Recall to Repair Roman Shades by Ethan Allen
[03/03] LELEsCompany Recalls Children's Hooded Sweatshirt Sets with Drawstrings Due to Strangulation Hazard
[03/03] Outdoor Lighting Fixtures Recalled by American Electric Lighting Due to Shock Hazard
[03/03] Children's Bracelets Recalled by Chandigarh Fashion Due to Violation of Lead Paint Standard
[03/03] Boys' Hooded Jackets with Drawstrings Recalled by Ten West Apparel Due to Strangulation Hazard; Sold at Burlington Coat Factory

More...

FDA Recalls

[03/06] National Pretzel Co. Annouces Precautionary Recall of Honey Mustard Onion Seasoned Pretzels Because of Possible Health Risk
[03/06] Estrella Family Creamery Recalls Old Apple Tree Tomme Cheese Due to Possible Health Risks
[03/05] Ed Roller, Inc. Announces Voluntary Recall of Wegmans 9 oz. Food You Feel Good About Medium Seafood Sauce Due to Undeclared Ingredients on Label
[03/05] Mincing Overseas Spice Company Voluntarily Recalls Two Lots of Black Pepper
[03/05] Fresh Food Concepts Announces a Voluntary Recall of Spinach Dips Due to Possible Health Risk

More...

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[03/09] Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.

[03/05] Bustos v. Martini Club Inc.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on a late-night confrontation with several off-duty police officers, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the election of remedies provisions in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 101.106 applied to state law intentional tort claims against a governmental unit and its employees; 2) plaintiff did not allege facts to suggest that the officers who assaulted him misused or abused their official power; and 3) bystander officers had no constitutional duty to prevent the alleged assault.

[03/05] Howard v. St. Germain
In an appeal from the district court's order assessing attorney's fees against defendants based on their improper removal of the case, the order is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in taxing costs and attorney's fees to defendants because an objectively reasonable basis for removal did not exist.

More...

Consumer Products

[03/03] Byers v. Intuit, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action on behalf of U.S. taxpayers against the IRS and a consortium of companies in the electronic tax preparation and filing industry (FFA) claiming violations of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) in the charging of fees in exchange for providing e-filing services, as well as a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, dismissal of both claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court was correct in holding that the IOAA does not apply to the FFA members, as it only applies to a government agency and none of the exceptions in Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999) apply; and 2) the district court did not err in dismissing the Sherman Act claim as the FFA members are entitled to conduct-based implied antitrust immunity with respect to the anti-competitive action taken pursuant to the Ceiling Provisions of the 2005 Agreement with the IRS.

[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.

[03/02] Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. US
In plaintiff's action with the Court of International Trade challenging a determination that the multinational corporation provision, 19 U.S.C. section 1677b(d) (MNC Provision) did not apply to a company with affiliates in China and Vietnam, the court's decision is affirmed as the Department of Commerce acted in accordance with law in concluding that the MNC provision is not applicable when the non-exporting country is a nonmarket economy and normal value is based on a factors-of-production methodology.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

For Consultation, Call: 1 (866) 495-8060

Important News Updates

Miami Office
One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3100
2 South Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33131
305-371-3666

Ft. Lauderdale
950 S. Pine Island Road,
Suite A-150
Plantation, FL 33324
954-524-9944

Fort Myers Office
2245 McGregor Boulevard
Fort Myers, FL 33901
1-866-495-8060

  • Office Locations

FirmSite® by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.

Our Florida personal injury attorneys represent clients throughout south Florida, including Miami-Dade County, Monroe County, Broward County, Palm Beach County, Martin County, Polk County, Lee County, Collier County, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, Plantation, and Miami.