Latest 3 Cases This Week: Joe Sanfelippo Cabs, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir.), C&H Power Line Construction Co. v. Enterprise Products Operat ...

  Commercial Appraiser
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
310.337.1973 (Cell,) 310.251.3959 (Text)
Commercial Appraiser 
From: Business Law - Justia Weekly Opinion Summaries
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 6:04 AM
To: Commercial Appraiser
Subject: Latest 3 Cases This Week: Joe Sanfelippo Cabs, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee (7th Cir.), C&H Power Line Construction Co. v. Enterprise Products Operat ...
 

Free Business Law case summaries from Justia.
If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.
To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add [email protected] to your address book.
Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a FREE service.Subscribe to summaries of US appellate court opinions at Daily.Justia.comPractice area emails with summaries from all reviewed courts are sent weekly.Licensed attorneys with Justia profiles may log in to annotate Justia appellate case law.You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole.Today on Verdict
“Prison for Hillary”
John Dean
John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, comments on Donald Trump’s recent calls for the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton. Dean points out that jailing political opponents is a tactic of dictators, not democracies. Read Article
Weekly Opinion SummariesBusiness Law
Weekly Summaries Distributed October 14, 2016
· Joe Sanfelippo Cabs, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee
Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Business Law, Constitutional Law, Transportation Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · C&H Power Line Construction Co. v. Enterprise Products Operating, LLC
Business Law, Personal Injury
Oklahoma Supreme Court · Verio Healthcare v. Superior Court
Business Law, Civil Procedure, Legal Ethics
California Court of Appeal Receive this and other FREE daily opinion summaries from Justia
Joe Sanfelippo Cabs, Inc. v. City of MilwaukeeCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Docket: 16-1008 Opinion Date: October 7, 2016 Areas of Law: Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Business Law, Constitutional Law, Transportation Law From 1992-2013, a Milwaukee ordinance limited taxicab permits to those in existence on January 1, 1992 that were renewed. The ordinance lowered the ceiling over time by virtue of the nonrenewals. By 2013 the number of permits had diminished from 370 to 320. The price of permits on the open market soared as high as $150,000. In 2013, after a successful equal protection and substantive due process challenge, the city conducted a lottery, which attracted 1700 permit seekers. Milwaukee had only one taxicab per 1850 city residents, a much lower ratio than comparable cities. The city eliminated the cap in 2014. In the meantime, “ridesharing” companies such as Uber, had diminished the profitability of the existing taxi companies. Plaintiffs, cab companies, alleged that the increased number of permits has taken property without compensation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal. The taxi companies were aware that there was no guarantee that the ordinance would remain in force indefinitely, and that, were it repealed, they would be faced with new competition that would threaten their profits. The ordinance gave them no property right; its repeal invaded no right conferred by the Constitution. The court similarly rejected state-law claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and equitable estoppel. http://j.st/46KC View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

C&H Power Line Construction Co. v. Enterprise Products Operating, LLCCourt: Oklahoma Supreme Court Citation: 2016 OK 102 Opinion Date: October 11, 2016 Areas of Law: Business Law, Personal Injury While operating a large auger, James Neece, an employee of the plaintiff-appellee C&H Power Line Construction Company, ruptured an underground high pressure natural gas line belonging to the defendants-appellants Enterprise Products Operating, LLC. The blast killed Neece and damaged and destroyed equipment belonging to the plaintiff, which claimed that the accident was caused by the negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence of the defendants for failure to mark the pipeline after they had been notified of the intention to dig in the area of their pipeline. Plaintiff claimed loss of its business as a result of the accident. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $26 million and punitive damages of $1 million. Defendants raised issues regarding jury instructions, denial by the trial court of their motion for directed verdict, exclusion of evidence offered by the appellants, inclusion of inadmissible evidence, acceptance of a less than unanimous verdict, and awarding improper interest on the judgment, as grounds for appeal. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. http://j.st/46HY View Case On: Justia Google Scholar

Verio Healthcare v. Superior CourtCourt: California Court of Appeal Docket: G053068 Opinion Date: October 12, 2016 Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure, Legal Ethics Defendants Eric Schrier, Frank Frederick, and Angela Martinez had been employed in various capacities by plaintiff SG Homecare, Inc. before abruptly leaving to start a competing firm, defendant Verio Healthcare, Inc. SG Homecare filed the underlying complaint, alleging the individual defendants breached their contractual and fiduciary duties, and misappropriated trade secrets. Schrier and his wife cross-complained against SG Homecare and its owner, Thomas Randall Rowley (together, the “SG parties”), alleging wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant Verio Healthcare and the individual defendants were represented by Donald Wagner of the firm Buchalter Nemer, PLC. Shortly after the cross-complaint was filed, the SG Parties moved to disqualify Buchalter Nemer. The motion was based on an assertion that shortly before the individual defendants’ departure from SG Homecare, Buchalter Nemer executed a retainer agreement with SG Homecare and was either currently representing SG Homecare, or, alternatively, the present litigation was substantially related to Buchalter Nemer’s prior representation of SG Homecare (requiring disqualification in either event). Adding to mix: Wagner, as a member of the California State Assembly, relied on statutory entitlement to a continuance and extension of time of the entire litigation. The trial court denied the motion for a stay without explanation. Defendants petitioned the Court of Appeals court for a writ of mandate to order the trial court to grant the stay. The Appeals court summarily denied the petition, but the California Supreme Court granted review and remanded back to the Appeals court with instructions to issue an order to show cause. The Court of Appeals issued that order and denied the writ, namely because it found that the trial court acted within its discretion in its finding that the stay would "defeat or abridge the other party's" right to relief. http://j.st/469e View Case On: Justia Google Scholar
Justia has an unparalleled track record of helping lawyers & law firms grow their practices with online marketing. Contact us today to learn more about how we can help you turn your website into an effective marketing tool. Call us at (888) 587-8421 or Contact Us. Forward to a FriendHave friends who like law? Forward this email.Find Us on FacebookLike Justia and enjoy legal discussions on Facebook.Follow Us on TwitterFollow Justiacom for news and updates on Twitter.Justia.com Free Legal Information Portalwww.Justia.comFederal & State Case Law, Codes & RegsLaw.Justia.comUS Federal Case Filings & DocketsDockets.Justia.comDaily Opinion SummariesDaily.Justia.comYou received this email because you have subscribed to Justia Daily Opinion Summaries. You can subscribe to summaries for US Courts, including the US Supreme Court, all US Courts of Appeals and some US state courts.Visit the Justia Daily Opinion Summaries page to add, edit or remove subscriptions.If you are experiencing problems with this newsletter, please email our tech support team at [email protected] From This Newsletteror unsubscribe [email protected] from all newsletters immediately here."Justia" is a registered trademark of Justia Inc.
Justia • Justia, Inc. 1380 Pear Ave Suite 2B Mountain View, CA 94043 USAHave a Happy Day!Hug the Pug© 2011-2016, Justia Inc.