Michael Sean Rizzo, Jr., through his mother, Pamela Rizzo, filed an action against Dr. Schiller, an obstetrician and gynecologist, for breaching the standard of care owed to them when he assisted Ms. Rizzo with the delivery of Michael. The plaintiffs...

Webinar dates & topics for April 2019

A truck driver, appellee motorist, and appellant injured party were involved in an automobile accident. The truck owner brought an action against appellee for damages sustained in the accident. Appellee joined appellant as a third party defendant and...

Defendant individual appealed jury verdict from the District Court in favor of plaintiff in personal injury action who suffered eye injury when defendant struck him with fist, challenging jury instructions regarding right of self defense.

Defendant appealed an order from the County District Court denying her motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, for remittitur of the compensatory and punitive damages awarded to plaintiff in plaintiff's action for alienation of affections and...

Negligent claimant McDonald sued Deputy Klein and the Pima County Sheriff alleging that Klein "negligently released" Barry and that use of the dog "constituted a negligent, unjustified, and excessive use of force." The claimant recovered...

Plaintiff Best Cellars owns and operates four wine stores, including its flagship store on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, which pursue the novel marketing strategy of organizing wines by taste category rather than by grape type or country of origin...

The child was riding on defendant's lap in the front passenger seat of a rental car and was killed when the passenger-side air bag deployed in a collision. Defendant was convicted of criminally negligent homicide. Defendant appealed, arguing that...

Plaintiff donor George J. Pavlicic and the defendant donee Sara Jane Mills Vogtsberger were involved in a relationship over several years. During that time the plaintiff made numerous gifts of cash and property to the defendant upon her assurances that...

For 120 years, Vermont has recognized that the unsightliness of a thing, without more, does not render it a nuisance under the law. These consolidated cases require the court to revisit whether Vermont law recognizes a cause of action for private nuisance...