Firm Directory
To see our firm directory, please click below:
| Attorneys | |
| Administrative Staff | |

Norton on Insurance Coverage in Pennsylvania, 2nd Edition (PBI Press)
4710 U.S. Steel Tower
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2702
Phone: 412-288-4000
Fax: 412-288-2405
Email
These news items and case summaries are a service provided by FindLaw. Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. does not endorse any service or product advertised or discussed in any of these items.
Business
[02/08] Hanmi brings in financial adviser
Intellectual Property
[02/08] UN patent filings dropped for 1st time since 1978
Insurance
[02/08] CVS Caremark 4Q profit grows 11 percent
Environment
[02/08] LA-area cleans up from storms, new round coming
Intellectual Property
[02/05] SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
In a patent infringement action by a French company that specializes in home-cooking appliances against a Hong Kong corporation, involving a patent which claims a deep fryer with an inexpensive plastic outer shell or skirt, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) there is no manifest of injustice in honoring a jury's finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 2) there is no prejudice to defendant in the district court's conclusion at the preliminary injunction stage that prosecution history estoppel did not apply; 3) the district court did not err in admitting plaintiff's expert testimony; 4) the jury's finding of inducement is justified, and the damage award, even if it was based on inducement alone, stands; 5) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for JMOL on discovery misconduct grounds; 6) district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a new trial to defendant based on the summation of plaintiff's counsel; and 7) there is no detectable error in district court's decision to set aside its original awards of enhanced damages and attorney's fees.
Insurance Law
[02/08] Ward v. Dixie Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
In a class action lawsuit against multiple insurance companies alleging that defendants violated a contractual promise under insurance policies to pay policyholders the "actual charges" of cancer treatments, judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) under the three-step retroactivity analysis, the presumption against retroactivity operates to bar the application of the South Carolina statute to the claims in this case; and 2) defendants' remaining arguments are meritless.
Environmental Law
[02/08] Crandall v. Denver
In an action under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to prohibit full-plane deicing at an airport concourse and also require other precautionary steps relating to airplane deicing fluid (ADF), judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that ADF at the airport (whether it degraded inside or outside the concourse) may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health.
Commercial Law
[12/11] Metro Allied Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Lin
In plaintiff's action against an insurance company for negligence and a violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for failure to procure a commercial general liability (CGL) policy, the judgment of the court of appeals in favor of the plaintiff is reversed and remanded is the causation standard for a claimed failure to procure insurance under a negligence theory and under the DTPA requires proof of the availability of some insurance that would have covered the plaintiff's damages.
Home | Firm Overview | Practice Areas | Attorney Biographies | Resource Library | FindLaw Newsletter | Latest News and Case Summaries | Web Links | Firm Directory | Contact Us
© 2010 Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. All rights reserved.