Case Summaries

Family Law

[02/08] DG v. DeVaughn
In a class action against the Oklahoma Department of Human Services claiming that the department's agency-wide foster care policies and practices exposed all class members to an impermissible risk of harm, the district court's order certifying a class is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs presented more than conclusory statements that defendants' agency-wide monitoring policies and practices, or lack thereof, created a risk of harm shared by the entire class; 2) due to the common risk of harm and the common underlying legal theory for asserting that risk, the district court acted within its discretion to find that typicality was satisfied; and 3) the injunction sought by plaintiffs applied to the proposed class as a whole without requiring differentiation between class members.

[02/05] In re Koehler
In an attorney's petition for a writ challenging a trial court's order of contempt on attorney arising from divorce proceedings, attorney's petition is treated as one for prohibition and granted, and the order of contempt is reversed and annulled as the requisite procedures were not followed and the applicable law was not applied.

[01/14] Arthur v. Arthur
In a dissolution of marriage action, judgment of the trial court permitting the wife to relocate after twenty months is vacated where, the petition for relocation should have been denied as a best interests determination in petitions for relocation must be made at the time of the final hearing and must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[02/05] Omstead v. Dell, Inc.
In a proposed class action alleging that Dell designed, manufactured, and sold defective notebook computers, dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs did not cause any unreasonable delay in the progression of their case; and 2) a choice-of-law provision is unenforceable, and a class action waiver pursuant to which Dell obtained an order compelling arbitration was unconscionable under California law because it satisfied the Discover Bank test, and California had a materially greater interest than Texas in applying its own law.

[02/03] Dotson v. Amgen, Inc.
In plaintiff's action for wrongful termination, trial court's denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration on the ground that the provision concerning witness depositions was flawed is reversed as the language permitting the arbitrator to expand discovery upon a showing of need removes any taint of unconscionability from the agreement, and even if it's assumed to be unconscionable, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to severe it.

[01/29] Lhotka v. Geographic Expeditions, Inc.
Trial court's denial of defendant's motion to compel arbitration of a wrongful death action brought by the survivors of one of its clients who died on a Mount Kilimanjaro hiking expedition is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs made a sufficient showing to establish at least a minimal level of oppression to justify a finding of procedural unconscionability; 2) the arbitration clause was so one-sided as to be substantively unconscionable; and 3) it was within the court's discretion to conclude the agreement was so permeated by unconscionability that the interests of justice would not be furthered by severing the damages limitations clause and enforcing the remainder.

More...

Legal Malpractice

[02/04] Elam v. Menzies
In plaintiff's suit claiming negligence in a heart operation that defendant-doctor performed, summary judgment for doctor on the ground that Kentucky's one year statute of limitations for medical malpractice suits had run is reversed and remanded as there is a factual dispute as to whether plaintiff knew or should have known he had a claim after the conversation with a second doctor, and thus, this issue should be referred to the jury.

[02/02] Clark v. Baka
In an action for damages for physical and neurological injuries plaintiffs' grandchild allegedly sustained during his birth, plaintiffs' appeal from summary judgment for defendant-hospital management company is dismissed where the district court abused its discretion in certifying the action for appeal because the court of appeals was unable to discern how or why plaintiffs would face hardship or injustice by waiting to appeal until their claims against all defendants were fully resolved by the district court.

[01/14] Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Admin. Hearings
In a consolidated medical malpractice action, involving the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan established by the legislature, the decision by the Second District is quashed and remanded where, in order to satisfy the notice requirement of section 766.316, Florida Statutes, both participating physicians and hospitals with participating physicians on staff must provide obstetrical patients with notice of their participating in the plan.

More...

Health Law

[02/08] Johnson v. Weld County
In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action based on defendant's failure to hire plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to rebut defendant's evidence suggesting that the male candidate it hired as Fiscal Officer had superior qualifications to plaintiff's, as well as its evidence that she was not, at the time of the hiring decision, disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

[02/08] Crandall v. Denver
In an action under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to prohibit full-plane deicing at an airport concourse and also require other precautionary steps relating to airplane deicing fluid (ADF), judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that ADF at the airport (whether it degraded inside or outside the concourse) may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health.

[02/08] Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
In a class action lawsuit against multiple insurance companies alleging that defendants violated a contractual promise under insurance policies to pay policyholders the "actual charges" of cancer treatments, judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) under the three-step retroactivity analysis, the presumption against retroactivity operates to bar the application of the South Carolina statute to the claims in this case; and 2) defendants' remaining arguments are meritless.

More...