Jump To Navigation
Se Habla Español

Latest Legal News

News

Litigation

Read More

Medical Devices

Read More

Personal Injury

Read More

Product Liability

Read More

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[03/10] Primiano v. Cook
In an action against the manufacturer of an artificial elbow, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the exclusion of plaintiff's expert's evidence was error as plaintiff's expert, with a sufficient basis in education and experience, testified that the artificial joint "failed to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of its nature and intended function," which was enough to assist a trier of fact.

[03/10] Fortis Corp. Ins. SA. v. Viken Ship Mgmt. AS
In a maritime shipping case involving a claim for rust damage to steel coils caused by exposure to seawater during a journey from Poland to Ohio, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) a ship manager charged with providing a Master, officers and crew, and performing various other ship-management tasks for the shipping vessel does not qualify as a "carrier" under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), and thus the COGSA's one year-statute of limitations does not bar the underlying suit; and 2) defendant's claim that the district court's finding of negligence was based on clearly erroneous factual findings is rejected.

[03/10] Cameron v. N.Y.
In an action for false arrest and malicious prosecution, judgment for defendant-officers is reversed where: 1) prosecutors' opinions as to probable cause and complaining officers' credibility are irrelevant in virtually all cases involving claims of malicious prosecution; and 2) the introduction of such evidence was not harmless because it provided strong external validation for propositions that otherwise would have come in only from the defendants' mouths.

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] McGuan v. Endovascular Techs., Inc.
In plaintiffs' products liability action against the makers of a device for use by surgeons to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, for injuries suffered after they were implanted with the device, grant of defendants' motion for a summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' fraud claims of FDA violations are preempted under Buckman; 2) the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants' motion to seal documents.

[03/09] Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

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.

Laminack, Pirtle & Martines
5020 Montrose Blvd, 9th Floor
Houston, TX 77006-6533

Phone: 713-292-2750
Toll free: 800-805-2778
Fax: 713-292-2755
Email Firm | Map / Directions

The personal injury litigation law firm of Laminack, Pirtle & Martines provides legal advice and representation for clients in communities throughout Texas, including communities such as Houston, Galveston, Beaumont, Port Arthur, Pasadena, Deer Park, Baytown, Texas City, Bay City, Corpus Christi, McAllen, Harlingen, Victoria, Conroe, The Woodlands, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, Irving, Plano, Carrollton, Waxahachie, Longview, Nacogdoches, Huntsville, College Station, and Waco, Texas.

Whether you live in East Texas, Southeast Texas, the Rio Grande Valley or along the Gulf Coast, Laminack, Pirtle & Martines is the law firm to call when you have been injured or lost a loved one in an accident caused by someone's negligence. In addition to Texas, we handle cases in Reno and Las Vegas, Nevada, as well as Louisiana communities such as Lake Charles, Alexandria, Lafayette, Baton Rouge and New Orleans.

FirmSite® by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.