Articles

Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Law

[03/18] In re: Condor Ins. Ltd.
In an action by persons appointed Joint Official Liquidators of a Nevis corporation in a Nevis bankruptcy proceeding, alleging Nevis law claims against a related U.S. entity, the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order dismissing the complaint is reversed where a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to offer avoidance relief under foreign law in a Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceeding.

[03/16] In re: Delco Oil, Inc.
In a bankruptcy adversary proceeding, district court's order affirming a bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where the bankruptcy trustee may avoid post-petition payments by the debtor under 11 U.S.C. sections 549(a) and 363(c)(2) as unauthorized transfers of cash collateral.

[03/12] In Re: Kirkland
District court's determination that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine the post-petition interest and collection costs to which the creditor was entitled as the result of a default on a student loan that occurred after the Chapter 13 estate was closed and the debtor discharged is reversed as the district court erred in concluding that the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction over the issues.

[03/10] In Re: Am. Bridge Prods., Inc.
In a bankruptcy trustee's action against an appointed receiver for misfeasance, judgment of the district court finding that plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations is vacated and remanded as the receiver had not rendered a final accounting or been discharged in either state or federal court.

[03/08] In Re: Ray
District court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of two Chapter 11 proceedings was correct, but the decision is vacated, as the law firm lacked standing where there is no evidence that one of the law firm's former attorneys ever informed the bankruptcy court that it was appearing on behalf of the firm and the record is devoid of any mention of the firm by the attorney or any other party.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[03/17] Willbros RPI, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co.
In an action against an insurer seeking a declaratory judgment that defendant was required to provide defense and indemnity, partial summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) conduct that clearly fell outside of the professional services exclusion provides an independent "but for" cause of the injury; and 2) indemnity issues must await resolution of the underlying suit. However, the order is reversed in part where defendant-insurers' "Other Insurance" provisions conflicted and liability for defense of the underlying suit should thus be apportioned on a pro rata basis.

[03/17] Holmes v. Kimco Realty Corp.
In plaintiff's negligence suit against a retailer for injuries he sustained when he fell on ice/snow in the parking lot, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as the state of New Jersey would not impose a duty on an individual tenant for snow removal from the common areas of a multi-tenant parking lot when the landlord has retained and exercised that responsibility.

[03/17] T.E. v. Grindle
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against an elementary principal and the school district's band teacher arising from molestation of several young girls by the band teacher, district court's denial of the principal's motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is affirmed as the plaintiffs have put forth evidence which, if credited by the jury, is sufficient to create liability under the clearly established law.

[03/17] In re Ephedra Prods. Litig.
In a personal injury action alleging injuries resulting from the ingestion of the drug ephedra, the Second Circuit certified the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) Are the provisions of N.Y. C.P.L.R. section 214-c(4) providing for an extension of the statute of limitations in certain circumstances limited to actions for injuries caused by the latent effects of exposure to a substance? 2) Can an injury that occurs within 24 to 48 hours of exposure to a substance be considered "latent" for these purposes? 3) What standards should be applied to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for resolution by a trier of fact as to whether "technical, scientific or medical knowledge and information sufficient to ascertain the cause of [the plaintiff's] injury" was "discovered, identified or determined" for N.Y. C.P.L.R. section 214-c(4) purposes?

[03/16] McBride v. CSX Transp. Inc.
In plaintiff's action under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) seeking compensation for injuries he sustained while performing switching operations for his employer, district court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) common law proximate causation is not required to establish liability under the FELA; and 2) district court did not commit instructional error refusing defendant's proffered instruction and giving the causation instruction to the jury instead as it correctly and completely informed the jury of the applicable law.

Read More