Jump to Navigation

Findlaw News

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[09/19] Katz v. The Donna Karan Company, LLC
Affirming the judgment of the district court dismissing the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) case because the printing of a credit card number on a receipt was held not to increase the risk of material harm of identity theft, but remanding for the dismissal to be entered without prejudice due to the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

[09/19] California State Outdoor Advertising Association v. City and County of San Francisco
Reversing and remanding the district court's denial of a plaintiff motion for preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion in the case of a group of retailer associations challenging a San Francisco city ordinance that required a warning about the health effects of sugar-sweetened beverages they say violated their First Amendment rights because the associations are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that this is an unjustified and unduly burdensome disclosure requirement chilling protected commercial speech.

[09/18] U1IT4Less, Inc. v. FedEx Corporation
Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant FedEx because the plaintiff, who complained of inflated shipping and customs charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) because the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that FedEx Corp/Services, the alleged Rico 'persons,' are distinct from FedEx Ground, the alleged RICO enterprise.

[09/12] Campidoglio LLC v. Wells Fargo and Company
In a case alleging the miscalculation of interest on loans the court determined that the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) does not preempt common law breach of contract claims, affirmed that summary judgment for the defendant loan provider was appropriate as it related to the use of unapproved indexes because the lenders gave notice to their primary regulators of the intent to change indexes and there was no objection, affirmed the denial of the borrower's motion for discovery sanctions because there was no prejudice resulting from the ruling, and vacated the denial of attorneys' fees pursuant to the HOLA ruling.

[08/28] California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland
Affirming a Court of Appeals judgment that article XIII C of the California Constitution, limiting the ability of local governments to tax, does not constrain voter constitutional powers to propose and adopt initiatives or raise taxes by such initiatives in the case of a city ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries and requiring an annual licensing and inspection fee of $75,000.

[08/07] Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers Coalition v. US
Affirming the Court of International Trade's decision affirming a Department of Commerce ruling in the administrative review of an earlier anti-dumping order, the court held that no error occurred in the determination that a Chinese saw blade manufacturer was seeking to sell their products at less than fair market value in the United States.

[08/02] US v. Stone
Affirming the district court's rulings in the case of a mortgage fraud scheme where the defendant alleged a conflict of interest but the court found that the interest was not significant and the court's judgment would not substantially affect the companies involved and because the sentence and restitution order were not an abuse of discretion.

[08/02] Olagues v. Icahn
Affirming the judgment of the District Court dismissing the plaintiff's claims seeking the disgorgement of 'short-swing' profits under the Securities Exchange Act from three companies owned by a single individual because the plaintiff had not plausibly alleged that the defendant had failed to disgorge all of the premiums he received for selling the put options at issue.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[07/28] Baker v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board
Affirming the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund benefits commence at the time the employer's obligation to pay permanent disability benefits begin.

[07/21] Chugach Management Services Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Jetnil
Denying the petition for review of the award of disability benefits under the Defense Base Act and the application of a judicially-created 'zone of special danger' doctrine to a local national injured while employed by a government contractor overseas.

[06/20] Zhu v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
In a case involving an in-home caretaker injured while traveling between worksites, the court annulled an earlier appeal dismissing the action and remanded for a new decision, where the facts of the case qualified for the required vehicle exception to the going and coming rule.

[05/22] Southern Ins. Co. v. WCAB
In an action involving a workers' compensation insurance policy that was issued based on the express representation that the covered employer's employees did not travel out of state, and after an employee was injured out of state, the insurer notified the employer that it was rescinding the policy because of the employer's misrepresentation and returned the premium, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision affirming an arbitrator's decision that, as a matter of law, the insurer could not rescind the policy and that the policy was in effect, is annulled where: 1) contrary to the arbitrator's ruling, a workers' compensation insurance policy may be rescinded; and 2) the arbitrator and the appeals board did not address and determine whether rescission was a meritorious defense to the employee's claim.

[04/26] City of Jackson v. WCAB
In a workers' compensation case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's decision disregarding the apportionment determination of the qualified medical evaluator (QME) on the ground the determination was not substantial medical evidence and directing the workers' compensation administrative law judge (ALJ) to make an award of unapportioned disability, is annulled where: 1) apportionment may be properly based on genetics/hereditability; 2) the QME properly apportioned disability; and 3) the QME's opinion Is based on substantial medical evidence.

[03/29] Marin Community Services v. WCAB
In a writ proceeding seeking to set aside the decision of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) holding that firefighter-petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the rebuttable presumption under Labor Code section 3212.1 that his cancer arose out of his employment, the WCAB's decision is affirmed where: 1) the WCAB's determination that petitioner was an employee of Marinwood was based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes; and 2) the WCAB's determination that the extension of the cancer presumption ran from the date petitioner last worked as a firefighter for any agency was based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statute.

[03/29] Ramirez v. WCAB
In a workers' compensation writ proceeding, seeking review of worker-petitioner's independent medical review on the ground the underlying utilization review was based on an incorrect standard, the order of the administrative law judge (ALJ) taking the matter off calendar is reversed and remanded for further proceedings where: 1) this is not a proper ground for appeal of a utilization review determination because it goes to the heart of the determination of medical necessity; 2) the independent medical reviewer is in the best position to determine whether the proper standard was used to evaluate the medical necessity of the requested treatment, and the statutory scheme requires the independent medical reviewer to use the proper standard in determining medical necessity; and 3) the Legislature's plenary power over the workers' compensation system precludes any separation of powers violation, and the process afforded workers under the system affords sufficient opportunity to present evidence and be heard.

[03/24] Co. of Riverside v. WCAB
In a workers' compensation case involving a sheriff, the findings by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board are affirmed over a County's challenge where: 1) plaintiff's the application for adjudication of claim was timely filed; and 2) Labor Code section 5500.5(a), did not bar liability on the County?s part.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Open & Obvious- Recent Legal Events
Tell us about your case:

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close


Business Organizations and Transactions FAQ | Learn More
Office Location

9505 North Kelley Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73131

Phone: 405-605-9000
Fax: 405-605-9010

Email | Oklahoma City Law Offices

Hiltgen & Brewer, P.C. • 405-605-9000

The law offices of Hiltgen & Brewer, P.C., represent business clients nationwide. We provide professional litigation defense and legal counsel for businesses throughout the United States.

• Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • District of Columbia • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming