News

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.

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] 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).

More...