Case Summaries

Admiralty

[02/25] Bessemer & Lake Erie R.R. Co. v. Seaway Marine Transp.
In an admiralty action seeking recovery of repair costs and lost profits against a cargo ship after it struck a land-based coal-loading machine operated by plaintiff, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of summary judgment as to liability is reversed as there is a genuine dispute of fact over plaintiff's comparative negligence; and 2) district court's rejection of plaintiff's lost-profits claim is affirmed as plaintiff did not adequately disclose the basis of its lost-profits claim.

[02/22] Cianbro Corp. v. George H. Dean, Inc.
In an in rem maritime lien action, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and an order issuing a declaratory judgment to the effect that plaintiffs' vessels were not subject to a maritime lien in favor of defendant is affirmed as defendant failed to make the factual showing that it provided necessaries to the vessels as is required by 46 U.S.C. section 31342(a).

[02/03] ProShipLine Inc. v. Aspen Infrastructures Ltd.
In an action to secure a maritime attachment, district court's order denying plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to post security in lieu of garnishment is affirmed where a district court lacks the legal capacity under the Admiralty Rules to order a party to post security in lieu of garnishment. However, the district court's order equitably vacating plaintiffs' Rule B writ and exonerating security posted for that writ is reversed where the district court abused its discretion by concluding that it was bound by res judicata to vacate the writ to conform with the Southern District of New York's decision to vacate the writ involved in a related action pending there.

[01/28] Aqua Log, Inc. v. Georgia
In two in rem admiralty actions seeking to salvage logs lying at the bottom of Georgia's rivers, the district court's denial of the state's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity is affirmed where that doctrine did not apply because the state did not have possession of the logs.

[01/21] Misener Marine Constr., Inc. v. Norfolk Dredging Co.
In an action arising out of a dredging contract dispute, a district court's order denying attorney's fees to defendant-counterclaimant is affirmed where the American Rule barring the shifting of attorneys' fees was a characteristic feature of maritime law, which governed the interpretation of the contract between the parties.

[01/11] Equatorial Marine Fuel Mgmt. Servs. Pte. Ltd. v. MISC Berhad
In an appeal from the district court's order vacating a maritime attachment of defendant's property, the order is affirmed where the district court properly vacated the attachment because plaintiff failed to show it had a valid prima facie breach of contract or unjust enrichment claim against defendant.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[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.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

[03/04] Aills v. Boemi
In plaintiff's medical malpractice suit against defendant plastic surgeon arising out of negligence in connection with an elective surgical procedure for breast reconstruction, the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeal is quashed and remanded as the district court erred in reversing for a new trial on the basis of an improper argument by plaintiff's counsel during closing argument.

More...