Judgment affirmed allowing respondent to bring a fraudulent procurement of contract suit against petitioners even though only economic losses related to the contract were claimed, as independent legal duty supporting tort suit arose when contract fraudulently procured, but damage award reversed and new trial ordered because evidence did not support entire award, and "fair dealing" suit dismissed, as no such...

The judgments of the trial court and court of appeals were reversed, and judgment was rendered on the jury verdict for petitioner, subject to a credit for damages already received in settlement.

The court affirmed the court of appeals and held that defendant's employee handbook was a binding contract on defendant and defendant breached its contract by terminating plaintiff in a manner inconsistent with the handbook. The cause was remanded to the circuit court with directions to enter summary judgment for plaintiff.

The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

The court reversed the appellate court's decision, finding that the noncompetition agreement between petitioner and respondent was not entitled to enforcement because enforcement of the agreement was not necessary to protect respondent's legitimate business interest. Petitioner was not entitled to recover against respondent for wrongful injunction because respondent's suit was not baseless.

The trial court's judgment was reversed and the case was remanded to the trial court for a decision on the merits.

The court reversed, holding that there was no conflict between New York and New Jersey law and that even if there was a conflict, New Jersey law governed because of the significant contacts to New Jersey.

Judgment reversed and remanded because reimbursement of environmental-response costs would be "damages" under the terms of the insurance policies at issue, for which public policy did not prevent coverage.

The court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Affirmed because the insurer was under no obligation to defend or indemnify the third party action, and could not be found liable for statutory bad faith or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Defendant's case was remanded to the district court for consideration of whether defendant should be resentenced in light of the Booker/Fanfan decision.

Defendants' appeal on the first cause of action and plaintiff's appeal on the second cause of action were reversed, because the court of appeals found if in certifying the information, defendants made a statement as true to their own knowledge when they had no knowledge on the subject, liability for fraud could ensue.

The court granted the writ of error and reversed the judgment affirming the award to respondent wife for negligent infliction of emotional distress in a divorce proceeding with petitioner husband because Texas did not recognize the claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court remanded the case for new trial because it adopted the tort of intentional infliction of emotional harm.

Through remand in one case and affirmance in the other, jury verdicts for terminated middle manager plaintiffs were upheld because their indefinite term contracts providing for no discharge without cause were legally enforceable.

The court affirmed the conviction, but quashed the death sentence and directed a sentence of life imprisonment.

The court affirmed the judgment.

The court affirmed the order and held that plaintiffs, parents and administrators of estate, could not bring a cause of action against defendant charities because conflicts of laws required applying New Jersey law, and plaintiffs' claims against defendants were barred by the New Jersey charitable immunity statute, and had been litigated and determined by a final judgment of its courts.

The dismissal was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The judgment was reversed on the grounds that a social guest such as plaintiff was entitled to a warning of a dangerous condition so that he, like the defendant host, would be in a position to take special precautions when he came into contact with it.

The decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The court answered the certified question in the affirmative and held that in appellee stockholder's derivative action against appellant board of directors the complaint alleged facts that showed reasonable doubt regarding the ability of a majority of the board to independently exercise its judgment on the corporation's behalf had a demand been made at the time the action was filed. Therefore, demand on the board...

The en banc panel affirmed the portion of the district court's judgment addressed to the trade secret misappropriation claims. However, it reversed the portion of the district court's judgment addressed to the issue of infringement.

The court reversed defendants' convictions, holding that the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion for a mistrial after the prosecution used his peremptory challenges to strike all blacks from the jury, because the prosecutor used those challenges against black jurors on the ground of group bias alone.

The court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and dismissed the complaint.

The Board's refusal to register the importer's mark was affirmed, except that the Board's finding of likelihood of confusion for one of the competitor's marks was not supported by substantial evidence, and that finding was reversed.