Recently in Injury & Tort Law Category

Under the Hyde Amendment, a district court in a criminal case “may award to a prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation expenses, where the court finds that the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, unless the court finds that special circumstances make such an award unjust.”

Louis Manzo thinks he deserves a Hyde Amendment payout. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals disagrees.

Ray Caprio filed a complaint against Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC (HRRG) alleging two claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Last week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals revived his claim.

Let's say you have a class action lawsuit. You reach a settlement. But then, you realize that a substantial chunk of the settlement funds will go unclaimed. The plaintiffs' collective take will be $3 million. The attorneys' fees total $14 million. There's still $18.5 million looming in legal limbo.

Simple solution? Give the plaintiffs' shares to charity!

Except the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is not so comfortable with that solution, known as cy pres.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals interprets settlement agreements like contracts: absent ambiguity, the four corners control.

This week, the appellate court ruled that, even in the face of changing technologies, a court can't redefine the terms of a clearly-written settlement.

Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations can add up. A person who willfully fails to comply with FCRA requirements could be on the hook for actual and punitive damages.

Willfullness, however, is tricky a standard. It became even more complicated after the Supreme Court created a FCRA safe harbor in Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr, noting that a company cannot be said to have willfully violated FCRA if the company acted on a reasonable interpretation of FCRA's coverage.

Trying breach of fiduciary duty claims against 16 individual defendants sounds like a lengthy process, but a federal judge in Pennsylvania thinks that it can be done in 17 hours. Total.

Last week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals refused to order the judge to grant the litigants more time to make their cases, ruling that inadequate time challenges are better argued after a trial.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that a parent who sued a police officer for "forcing" her to accompany her daughter to the hospital did not establish a constitutional right violation.

In 2009, police showed up at Warren and Cheryl James' home after their 15-year-old daughter's friend alerted authorities that the daughter planned to commit suicide by ingesting ibuprofen. When questioned by her parents, the daughter admitted that she had planned to commit suicide, but said that she had changed her mind and had not ingested any pills. Nevertheless, Officer Michael Marshall stated that she had to go to the hospital for an evaluation.

Little League pins are a big deal in Pennsylvania.

Trading pins is the biggest activity at the Little League World Series outside of actual baseball, according to The (Harrisburg) Patriot-News. It can even form the basis of a federal lawsuit.

Randy and Janete Shrey sued Williamsport, Pa., Police Capt. Raymond O. Kontz III in 2010, accusing him of seizing more than 600 pins they'd designed for trading at the 2008 Little League World Series. This week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the claim as time-barred under Pennsylvania's statute of limitations.

In life, persistence often pays off. In an appeal, it can result in costs and damages.

In today's Third Circuit appeal, we have an eager litigant who couldn't escape the scourge of a res judicata ruling, but narrowly avoided sanctions thanks to a "colorable argument."

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals is letting a Delaware inmate pursue his claims against a corrections officer, even though the officer passed away in 2006.

Wardell Leroy Giles, a prisoner in the Delaware penal system, brought excessive force and deliberate indifference claims against officers, including Gary Campbell, based on a confrontation that occurred during Giles’ transfer to the Sussex Correctional Institution in 2001.

In 2004, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of several defendants, including Campbell, on the basis that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Giles appealed, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.