Above The Law
FEBRUARY 9, 2023
The post OAN Loses Breach Of Contract Case Against AT&T In CA, Refiles It In DC As Tort Suit appeared first on Above the Law. Well, they already had it drafted. Don't want to waste a pleading.
Law 360
APRIL 9, 2024
An Arkansas jury hit Walmart with a $101 million verdict Tuesday for breaching an agreement to purchase more than $500 million in personal protective equipment amid the coronavirus pandemic, while also finding in favor of the retail giant's tort counterclaims.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
FEBRUARY 21, 2024
The argument revealed a bench deeply skeptical of the uncertainty maritime insurance contracts would face under a lower-court decision limiting the enforcement of choice-of-law clauses in those contracts. The contract, like most American marine insurance contracts, called for the application of New York law.
At the Lectern
JULY 10, 2023
Santa Clara County, which operates a plan, had asserted that a separate statutory scheme — the Government Claims Act — immunizes it from reimbursement lawsuits when the provider doesn’t have a contract with the plan. ” (Link added.) ” (Link added.) .” ” (Link added.)
Day on Torts
SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
Although plaintiff labeled his complaint as a tort claim, the gravamen of the complaint was a dispute over “the amount, time and manner of payment of plaintiff’s pension plan benefits.” Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Code Ann. §
Day on Torts
JUNE 15, 2022
Although the State had contracted with a municipality for the maintenance of a state-owned highway, the State still bore “the ultimate responsibility for inspecting and maintaining [the highway],” and “the contract did not absolve the State of potential liability for failing to do so.” The Court rejected this argument.
Day on Torts
SEPTEMBER 9, 2022
Defendant Wolf Tree (Wolf) filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it owed no duty to plaintiffs because “its contract with SCES explicitly stated that it was not to prune service drops,” because “it had no statutory or common law duty,” and because “Plaintiffs could show no evidence of a negligent or intentional trespass or nuisance.”
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
97 
Let's personalize your content