Case Summaries
[11/17]
Staeher v. The Hartford Fin. Svcs. Group, Inc.
In an action brought by investors against defendant-financial group alleging that plaintiff-investors acquired defendant's stock at prices that were artificially inflated due to defendants' omissions, misrepresentations, and fraudulent concealment, dismissal of the complaint as time-barred is vacated and case is remanded where the district court erred in ruling that an investor of ordinary intelligence was on inquiry notice of defendant's allegedly fraudulent conduct by July 2001.
[11/14]
Perry v. Cohen
In a shareholder suit alleging misrepresentations about the financial situation of a corporation, dismissal of all claims for failure to copmly with an order granting special exceptions is reversed where the shareholders did not waive their challenge to the merits of the order sustaining the exceptions.
More...
[11/14]
Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, LLC v. Goldner
Petition for panel rehearing granted, prior opinion withdrawn, and matter remanded for further proceedings in light of Kerlin v. Sauceda, 05-0653 (Tex. October 10, 2008).
[11/12]
Hoopes v. Dolan
In a suit by plaintiff-commercial tenant against his landlord for exclusive parking rights under his lease, a judgment for defendants despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's verdict when fashioning equitable relief founded on the same evidence and the same operative facts as the verdict; 2) however, the defense of equitable estoppel was a matter within the exclusive province of the trial judge and it raised legal and factual issues undecided by the jury; and 3) while the trial court should have considered the equitable defense first, the order of trial was within the court's discretion and did not divest the judge of his duty to determine applicability of equitable estoppel.
More...
[11/17]
Busseto Foods, Inc. v. Laizure
In a bankruptcy case in which debtor had embezzled and subsequently repaid funds from his employer, and employer had later been required to return those funds to the bankruptcy estate, dismissal of employer's complaint alleging that it had a nondischargeable claim against debtor is reversed where a creditor that is required to return to the trustee a payment from the debtor made within the ninety-day preference period still maintains a claim against the debtor for a nondischargeable claim.
[11/13]
In re: Lanning
For purposes of calculating the "projected disposable income" of an above-median Chapter 13 debtor under amendments to the bankruptcy code effected by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, the circuit court adopts the "forward-looking approach," wherein a Chapter 13 debtor's six-month, pre-petition "disposable income" (as defined by statute) is presumed to be the debtor's "projected disposable income" for purposes of establishing the monthly sum that the debtor must commit to repayment of unsecured creditors in order to advance a confirmable payment plan and overcome objections to it. Also, the amount of projected disposable income is rebuttable upon a showing of special circumstances at the time of plan confirmation.
More...
[11/14]
H&R Block, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
Class actions filed against nationwide tax preparer H&R Block asserting a variety of statutory and common law claims arising out of H&R's Refund Anticipation Loan (RAL) program are excluded from "prior acts" coverage under professional liability "claims made" insurance policies because other class actions asserting similar claims were filed prior to the policy periods.
[11/10]
Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
In a suit involving Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, denial of a motion to compel arbitration is reversed where the arbitration clause in question bound plaintiff to arbitrate his dispute with defendant, even though defendant was not a signatory to the original agreement.
More...
Frequently Asked Questions
|
|
