Jump to Navigation

Findlaw News

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[07/18] The Container Store v. US
Reversing and remanding the final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade case granting summary judgment to the government because the subject modular storage unit imports were improperly classified as mountings and fittings rather than as parts of unit furniture.

[07/13] Eldridge v. Gordon Brothers Group, LLC
Affirming a ruling of summary judgment to the defendants but vacating and remanding for reconsideration a sanctions order since both sides agreed that the judge erred when ordering sanctions against the plaintiff rather than their attorneys and made a mistake in interpreting Delaware law relating to implied covenants.

[07/13] Council Tree Investors Inc. v. FCC
Denying a petition to review an FCC order allowing the limitation of bidding credits available to 'designated entities' in the bidding process for electromagnetic spectrum licenses since the decision was not arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to the law.

[07/13] Corsair Special Situations Fund, LP v. Pesiri
Certifying an issue for the Connecticut Supreme Court's review in the case of a CT State Marshal where a judgment creditor disputed their claim under a state statute that awards a fifteen percent commission for the levy of an execution and the Marshal was claiming a commission where they merely served a writ of execution, which the creditor argues did not amount to the completion of the levy.

[07/06] In re Petrobras Securities
Affirming the district court's ruling that a class of securities litigants was entitled to the presumption of reliance, but vacating and remanding a set of class definitions that failed to verify the domesticity of individual over-the-counter transactions on globally traded notes.

[07/03] Maverick Tube Corp. v. US
Affirming the US Court of International Trade's decision denying a duty drawback adjustment for exports of oil country tubular goods where the Turkish company claiming the drawback adjustment claimed that Commerce only increases price to account for rebated rather than unpaid import duties, a position the court declined to adopt.

[06/30] Cinema West, LLC v. Baker
Affirming the superior court's determination that a movie theater being constructed using a loan from the city government and receiving city grant funds was subject to California's prevailing wage laws as they apply to 'public works.'

[06/29] Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. US Dept. of Transportation
Denying petitions for review challenging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's authority to issue permits for US long-haul operations to Mexico-domiciled trucking companies.

Read More

Workers' Comp

[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.

[03/23] People v. Riddles
Conviction of workers' compensation insurance fraud in violation of Insurance Code section 11760(a) and restitution order are affirmed where: 1) a workers' compensation insurer may recover, as restitution under Penal Code section 1202.4, the premiums it would have earned in the absence of misrepresentations by an insurance applicant; and 2) the court did not err in imposing a fine.

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