In this products liability case, plaintiff Edward Dalton sued Toyota Motor Sales after his Toyota Corolla caught fire while parked, causing him severe burns; he alleged the catalytic converter was defectively designed and that the owner's manual provided inadequate warnings about parking over flammable materials. After a jury returned a $250,000 verdict for the plaintiff, Toyota moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff presented no expert testimony or other evidence on industry standards for catalytic converter design, no proof of causation, and no evidence establishing the inadequacy of the existing warning, which was prominently displayed in the manual. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and that a directed verdict should have been entered at trial.
The case involved Cecil Edgar Smith, a mechanic employed by Oil Field Maintenance Service, Inc., who sued Texaco Inc. under the Jones Act for back injuries sustained while lifting a valve on Texaco's compressor barge, the REDFISH. Texaco moved for summary judgment, arguing that the REDFISH was not a vessel under the Jones Act, so Smith lacked seaman status. The court granted the motion, concluding that the REDFISH was not a vessel because it was a submerged, fixed structure whose purpose was gas compression rather than transportation on water, lacking navigational features and similar to other non-vessel compressor barges in precedent like Blanchard.
The case involved a hotel guest who sued the Fairmont Roosevelt Hotel for the loss of jewelry stolen from her room during a burglary after she was unable to return the items to a safe deposit box upon late arrival. The court addressed the hotel's liability under Louisiana Civil Code articles governing innkeepers, including the applicability of a statutory cap following a related state supreme court decision. It found that the guest had registered, used the safe deposit box previously, and that the hotel had provided the required facilities and posted conspicuous notice of the liability limit. The court concluded that the hotel's maximum liability was $100 regardless of any negligence.
This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a state capital conviction and death sentence, with the primary claim being ineffective assistance of counsel at both the guilt-innocence and sentencing phases. The district court reviewed the full state record, conducted evidentiary hearings before a magistrate on the counsel claims, and considered the magistrate's report along with the petitioner's objections. The court made a de novo determination that counsel provided effective assistance meeting constitutional minima, rejected the objections as meritless, and addressed related Eighth Amendment arguments concerning mitigating evidence. It concluded that the Constitution permits imposition of the death penalty and does not require a lesser sentence based on any particular mitigating evidence. The court therefore denied the petition and dismissed the suit.
This case involves a breach of contract claim by Louisiana Power & Light Co. against Allegheny Ludlum Industries, Inc. for failing to supply condenser tubing as agreed under a 1974 contract governed by New York law. Allegheny sought price increases due to rising material and labor costs, declined to provide written assurances of performance when requested under UCC § 2-609, and offered to perform only at a higher price, prompting LP&L to obtain cover from another supplier. The court granted LP&L's motion for summary judgment on liability, finding a breach and rejecting Allegheny's defenses of commercial impracticability, mutual mistake, and bad faith based on the undisputed facts showing no excuse for nonperformance. Summary judgment was denied on the unconscionability defense and the amount of damages, which remain for trial.
William H. Shaffer filed a pro se complaint seeking to enjoin the IRS and his employer Amoco from withholding taxes on his wages after he submitted a W-4 form claiming exemption under IRC § 3402(n) based on no anticipated tax liability. The district court heard motions for a preliminary injunction and to dismiss, then granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The ruling was based on sovereign immunity, which bars suits against the United States absent an explicit waiver, the Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C. § 7421), which prohibits injunctions against tax collection, and the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201), which excludes federal tax matters from declaratory relief. These doctrines deprived the court of jurisdiction, so it did not address the underlying validity of the withholding or the W-4 form.
