Archives

Categories

Registration

Resources

KKO Lawyers Romero Park and Wiggins

Greene Roberts and Rasmussen

Archive for October, 2010

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Average Premises Liability Verdicts

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

By Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog.

The average premises liability verdict is $643,099, according to Jury Verdict Research's review of premises lawsuits around the country. The median verdict in premises liability cases is $98,160. Premises liability claims against recreational facilities were higher. The average verdict is $1,007,704 and the median verdict is $125,000. JVR defines these cases, as any premises liability lawyer would suspect, as a lawsuit which is brought against an individual, business, or organization responsible for the maintenance and safety of a property or structure.

When possible, I try to include average and median data. Average verdict data includes large often uncollectable verdicts that tend to distort the reality. While both the silly case that never should have been filed and the $58,000,000 verdict don't really apply to the valuation of your case, the former distorts the result more than the latter. Then again, all verdict data undifferentiated by specifics of the case ultimately should be filed away under "very interesting but ultimately useless."

It is also worth noting that this is a study of successful premise liability verdicts where the plaintiff prevails. Factoring in the losses, the average award is much lower. Most premise liability lawyers who handle premises cases regularly handle only serious injury or death cases. Clearly, the bar in terms of the severity of injury required for a good lawyer to accept the case is higher in premises liability cases than in auto accident cases where, generally speaking, the path to proving liability is more clear and certain.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

Posted in Personal Injury Verdicts | No Comments »

US Fed won’t join banks in appeal to Supreme Court

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

The Federal Reserve has decided not to join major banks in asking the US Supreme Court to let the central bank keep secret the details of its emergency lending programs during the financial crisis.

A group representing US and European commercial banks on Tuesday appealed to the Supreme Court asking it not to force the Fed to disclose details of its bailouts, as a federal appeals court in New York had ordered in March.

The group said forcing disclosure could lead markets and customers to worry about banks' health, jeopardizing their business prospects.

The Fed did not explain why it chose not to join the banks' appeal. In a statement, it said it "will await a determination from the courts and will comply fully with any final order. The Federal Reserve remains committed to timely and responsible transparency of its operations."

Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News, and News Corp's Fox News Network had sought bailout details under the federal Freedom of Information Act, which requires government agencies to make documents public.

The Supreme Court is expected in coming weeks to consider whether to review the unanimous March ruling by the second US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ordering the Fed to release details of programs it adopted starting in late 2007 to shore up the financial system.

These programs, along with other measures to support the economy, more than doubled the central bank's balance sheet to well over USD 2 trillion, a process that accelerated after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc's September 2008 collapse.

"The Fed has historically argued that you could have bank runs if you had disclosure, and that it did not want to enable these by having super-timely disclosure of problems," said William Ford, a professor at Middle Tennessee State University and former president of the Federal Reserve bank in Atlanta. "But we're already moving in the direction of full and immediate disclosure, quite aside from the legal battles."

Walker Todd, research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research and a former Fed legal officer in Cleveland and New York, said the banks group  the Clearing House Association LLC  might be more likely to have its appeal heard without the Fed's involvement.


Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Posted in Legal Business | No Comments »

Advocate appeals secret Kan. case to Supreme Court

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

An advocate for chronic pain patients who is under investigation for obstruction of justice has challenged grand jury subpoenas in a rare case that climbed secretly through the judicial system to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Siobhan Reynolds, president of the Pain Relief Network, has asked the nation's highest court to quash subpoenas issued to her and her nonprofit group and make public the proceedings against her. The usually public court docket - which includes court documents, hearing dates and other case information - has been sealed in her case in a federal district court in Kansas and 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Even at the U.S. Supreme Court, there was scant public record showing her case existed until last week, when the court agreed to make a redacted version of her appeal available while it decides whether to take the case.

Reynolds' attorney, Robert Corn-Revere of Washington, D.C., said the case is unusual because most secret proceedings involve some kind of national security and this one does not. Federal prosecutors have declined to talk about their reasons for pursuing the case in secret.


Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Posted in Court Watch | No Comments »

US court shuts down file-sharing service LimeWire

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

A federal judge in New York issued an injunction yesterday that will essentially shut down LimeWire, the big music file-sharing service that has been mired in a four-year legal struggle with the music industry. The case has already resulted in the company and its founder, Mark Gorton, being found liable for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

Although the file-sharing service is on the verge of vanishing in its current form, the company will continue negotiations with the major music companies about a deal to offer music for sale legally.

In her ruling, Judge Kimba M. Wood of US District Court in Manhattan forced the company to disable “searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality’’ of the company’s file-sharing software.

The court is scheduled to decide early next year the amount the company and Gorton will be forced to pay.
.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Posted in Breaking Legal News | No Comments »

Miss. man awarded $103M in lawsuit against lawyer

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

A Mississippi businessman has been awarded $103 million in a lawsuit against the Chicago-based law firm that he accused of defrauding his oil and gas business.

Lavon Evans Jr. filed the lawsuit in Jones County Circuit Court in Mississippi in 2008. It sought $150 million in damages from attorney Joel Held, who worked at the Dallas office of the Baker & Mackenzie law firm.

Held represented one of Evans' companies and manipulated documents and disclosed confidential information to benefit Reed Cagle, Evans' partner in Laredo Energy Holdings LLC, the lawsuit claims, among other things.

Baker & McKenzie told The Hattiesburg American in a statement that it disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.

Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Posted in Legal Business | No Comments »

Arizona executes man after Supreme Court green light

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

The southwestern US state of Arizona executed a prisoner for a 1989 murder late Tuesday, after the US Supreme Court ruled the state can use a non-approved drug for the lethal injection amid a US shortage.

Jeffrey Landrigan was pronounced dead in the state prison in Florence at 10:26 pm Tuesday, KVOA News 4 in Tucson, Arizona reported. A KVOA reporter witnessed the execution.

In a 5-4 ruling late Tuesday, the US high court said a lower court wrongfully blocked Landrigan's execution after officials refused to reveal where they got the necessary drugs and as questions remained about their safety.

"There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe," the Supreme Court said.

"There was no showing that the drug was unlawfully obtained, nor was there an offer of proof to that effect."

A federal appeals court that blocked the execution had earlier confirmed the drug came from an unidentified foreign manufacturer not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Arizona Attorney General's office has said the drug substitute came from a manufacturer in Britain.


Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Posted in Law Center | No Comments »

Alcohol and Walking Home

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

By Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog.

Last week, I wrote one of my most read Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog posts in the last four years, thanks to a Twitter link from the authors of Freakonomics. I love Freakonomics and Superfreakonomics to the point where I would put the Twitter link on my bio if it would not make me so obviously pathetic.

Anyway, the subject of the post was the ignored risks of pedestrians and alcohol which cause a remarkable number of deaths and injuries (and car accidents) every year in this country. To underscore this point, I read as I do every Monday, Norman Chad's syndicated column in the Washington Post. At the end of his column, he does a little question and answer:

    Q: Re: Colts punter Pat McAfee. Have you ever been arrested shirtless, soaking wet and reeking of alcohol? — Brian King, Carmel, Ind.
    A: Too much is made of public intoxication; in a simpler America, I believe you should be allowed to walk home drunk. Plus punting’s a part-time job with Peyton Manning’s Colts — I wouldn’t begrudge McAfee a midweek cocktail.

People should be allowed to walk home drunk? Now imagine if he had said the same thing about drinking and driving. I think the blogosphere would probably explode. Norman Chad must apologize to the families of everyone killed in a drunken pedestrian accident. He should be suspended from his job at ESPN and his column should be taken down for three months. He should be made to write 1000 times, "I will not make light of the serious public health issue of drunk pedestrians ever again." Norman Chad should be caned.

No, wait! That is the idiot's reaction, trying to beat an apology out of another public figure, particularly from a humorist who is just uninformed like everyone else on the real risks caused by drunk pedestrians. We need the public to pay more attention to issues that matter and less to the useless apologies beaten out of people who are trying in good faith to be honest or harmlessly funny.

But this is a teachable moment (yes, I'm sending my $2 to Obama for the copyright) about the associated risks of pedestrians and too much alcohol. I'm not saying we need a national movement running television commercials - an important issue does not have to be the most important issue - but it is a serious public health problem we need to take seriously. There may not be the same moral imperative to stop pedestrians as there is to stop drunk drivers but there needs to be enough public awareness so that someone like Norman Chad (and his editors) feels compelled to pass on a laugh to help save lives (and to avoid the risk of a public backlash).

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

Posted in Auto Accidents | No Comments »

Cell Phones in Maryland Courthouses

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

By Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog.

The Maryland Court of Appeals has signed off on some modifications to the Maryland Rules. Of particular interest to both lawyers and clients is new Maryland Rule 16-110. This new rule addresses the crucial issue of our day of whether you can bring a cell phone into court in Maryland. The short answer is yes. The long answer can be found here on page 18.

The rule also addresses the question of whether jurors may bring electronic devices into the jury deliberation room. The concern, of course, is whether the jurors use Google to find information to decide the case or give a shout out to friends on Twitter or Facebook about the case during deliberations. The new rule is clear that jurors may not take cell phones or other electronic devices into the room during deliberations.

I also thought it was interesting that the new rule states that there is no liability to security or court personnel who lose or damage someone's phone, presumably after the phone is confiscated. It is a little thing and I doubt that many phones, if any, are going to be lost or damaged under these circumstances. But, as a matter of principle and policy, I wonder if the Maryland Rules should be limiting tort liability. My view is that while the Maryland high court may rule the roost of what goes on in Maryland courtrooms, courthouses are not sovereign and tort immunities should not be granted so casually.

Originally posted at Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog. Please visit http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/.

Posted in Maryland Courts | No Comments »

Fed Reserve won’t appeal to withhold names: report

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

The Federal Reserve won’t join a banking industry trade group in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let the government continue to withhold details of emergency loans made to financial firms in 2008.

The Clearing House Association LLC, a group of the biggest commercial banks filed the appeal today. The Federal Reserve won’t file its own appeal, according to Kit Wheatley, an attorney for the central bank.

The banks are appealing a lower court order requiring the Federal Reserve to disclose lending records to Bloomberg LP, parent company of Bloomberg News. A federal judge ruled in August 2009 that the Fed had to disclose the names of banks that borrowed from its emergency lending programs.

“Greater transparency results in more accountability, and the banks’ fight continues to engender suspicion among taxpayers about the bailouts,” said Matthew Winkler, Bloomberg News editor-in-chief. “The banks’ move to appeal will deepen the public’s skepticism and defend a position that every other court has disagreed with. The public has the right to know.”

The Fed is facing unprecedented oversight by Congress. The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, known as Dodd- Frank, mandates a one-time audit of the Fed as well as the release of details on borrowers from Fed emergency programs. The Discount Window, which provides short-term funding to financial institutions, would have to disclose loans made after July 21, 2010, following a two-year lag. The Bloomberg lawsuit asks for information on that facility.


Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Posted in Breaking Legal News | No Comments »

Amazon Wins in Court Against NC for Now

Tuesday, October 26th, 2010

By Breaking Legal News, Breaking Legal News.

Amazon and the state of North Carolina have been fighting in court as NC tries to get residents that purchased on Amazon to pay sales tax the state feels it is owed. NC has demanded that Amazon reveal all sorts of buyer information like names, addresses, and the exact products purchased so it can asses sales tax on the items.

Amazon has refused to give specifics on what was purchased, though it did provide the names and addresses of buyers to NC authorities. Amazon has won a temporary reprieve in court with the judge presiding over the case stating that NC has "no legitimate need" to have details about purchases revealed to it.

However, the court said that the state could destroy the information is has now and then request new information from Amazon that would not be able to be tie a specific product to a specific user. Undoubtedly, NC will request this information and the courts will force Amazon to provide it setting a precedent none of us wants to think about.


Originally posted at Breaking Legal News. Please visit http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/.

Posted in business | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »