Print This PageSelected Cases
| Alan S. Miller Selected Cases | |
 | |
| Anthony P. Picadio Selected Cases | |
| |
| Henry M. Sneath Selected Cases | |
|
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
Latest Business and Legal News
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
[09/07] China rejects currency pressure amid US visit
Intellectual Property
[08/26] Patent dispute spins around Cedar Fair's new ride
Insurance
[09/07] Disability Insurance Services Named Petersen International Underwriters' Top Producer for 2009
Environment
[09/07] Hundreds flee fast-moving Colorado wildfire
Case Summaries
Intellectual Property
[09/07] Geoddel v. Sugano
In two related patent interference priority contests, related to human fibroblasts interferon used in combating pathogens and tumors, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' decision that appellee is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of its initial Japanese application in awarding appellee priority as to the counts of both interferences is reversed and remanded as the Board's decision that the Japanese Application constitutes constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter of these interferences is not in accordance with law, for the Japanese Application does not meet the criteria of section 112, first paragraph, as to this subject matter.
[09/07] Green Edge Enter., LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC
In a suit for infringement of a patent related to a synthetic mulch that is colored with a water based acrylic colorant to imitate natural mulch, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court erred by invalidating a patent; 2) the district court erred by dismissing defendant's trademark claims; 3) the district court abused its discretion by precluding all damages evidence for the Lanham Act counterclaims; and 4) the district court's holding with respect to counterclaims of noninfringement and invalidity of the mark is affirmed as there was no case or controversy.
Insurance Law
[09/03] Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Williams
In an interpleader action to determine the rights to life insurance proceeds, district court's grant of decedent's sister's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly admitted the affidavits as, under Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Watson, 207 S.W. 3d 442 (Ark. 2005), a deceased insured's oral statements to several people concerning that insured's future intentions to change the beneficiary in an insurance contract in favor of another are admissible to resolve disputes as to who is the proper beneficiary; and 2) the decedent's sister rebutted the presumption of undue influence with the affidavits in support of her motion for summary judgment.
[09/02] Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l. Union Ins. Co.
In an action by one insurer against another seeking $10 million in subrogation proceeds, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff waived certain rights by refusing repeated invitations to participate in subrogation discussions. However, the judgment is reversed in part where, as the excess insurer, plaintiff was entitled to a priority interest in the subrogation proceeds representing insured losses.
Environmental Law
[09/07] McEvoy v. KKL Dev., LLC.
In plaintiffs' suit against a local company for violations of the Illinois's Prohibition of Air Pollution and Fugitive Particulate Matter regulations, objecting to the nearby pile of coal stored by the defendant and alleging theories of recovery under the citizen-suit provision of the Clean Air Act (Act), district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) contrary to the district court's ruling, the Act permits citizen enforcement of standards found in an SIP, even if those standards are not repeated in a permit; 2) the Illinois's Prohibition of Air Pollution and Fugitive Particulate Matter regulations cannot be used as the basis of a citizen's suit under the Act, as the regulations do not set forth judicially enforceable standards or limitations; and 3) the district court was well within its rights to dismiss the supplemental state claims without prejudice.
[09/03] Sheffield v. City of Fort Thomas
In plaintiff's suit against a city and various city officials in their official and individual capacities, claiming that several of the city's ordinances related to controlling deer population, violate the United States and Kentucky Constitutions and that the ordinances are preempted by Kentucky state statutes and administrative regulations, district court's judgment in affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the Bow-and-Arrow Ordinance is not preempted; 2) the Field-Dressing Ordinance is not preempted by Chapter 150; 3) although 301 Ky. Admin. Regs. 2:-015 has preemptive force and the Deer-Feeding Ordinance is preempted insofar as it purports to ban deer-feeding within the curtilage of Fort Thomas homes, the ordinance is not preempted in its entirety, as it is a legitimate exercise of municipal authority as applied to deer-feeding outside the curtilage of the home; 4) plaintiff's substantive due process challenge to the Bow-and-Arrow Ordinance is rejected; and 5) the Deer-Feeding Ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague.
Commercial Law
[09/03] Flying J, Inc. v. Hollen
In plaintiff's facial challenge to Wisconsin's gasoline pricing regulations, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is reversed and remanded and a permanent injunction against enforcing provisions of the regulations is dissolved as the lack of evidence in the record supporting plaintiff's allegations of collusive conduct by gasoline dealers is fatal to its claim that the motor vehicle fuel provisions of the Unfair Sales Act are preempted by the Sherman Act as it cannot be found on the face of the statute any compelled or authorized conduct that constitutes a violation of federal antitrust law.
[09/03] Superior Seafoods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
District court's denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(d)(3) motion to vacate an underlying consent judgment involving a series of trademark-related actions stemming from plaintiff's sale of a seafood-products business to defendant is affirmed as, given the facts, and given the equitable requirement that the party seeking relief be free from negligence and fault, the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in finding equitable relief inappropriate in this case.
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.
