Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

This dispute arose from promises Defendant Daniel Ochsner allegedly made during Plaintiffs’ several-year tenure living and working on Defendants’ ranch. The district court denied all of Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants’ counterclaims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in denying Plaintiffs’ claims to a number of cattle; (2) erred in denying Plaintiffs’ claims to a cattle brand; (3) did not err in denying Plaintiffs’ Wyo. R. Civ. P. 15(b) motion to amend their complaint to conform to the evidence and to add promissory estoppel claims; and (4) did not err in denying Plaintiff’s motion to confirm an alleged settlement agreement between the parties. View "Gould v. Ochsner" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, and abuse of process. After a second jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for damages on Plaintiffs’ claims. Defendants appealed from the denial of a variety of motions and an award of costs and attorney fees to Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the filing of a post-judgment motion that tolls the time to appeal also tolls Nev. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B)’s twenty-day deadline to move for attorney fees; (2) the district court erred in finding that the $100,000 offset in Defendants’ favor from the first trial was extinguished by this Court’s previous order of reversal and remand; (3) the district court erred in finding that all Defendants, rather than just a real estate agency, were liable for attorney fees; and (4) the district court’s judgment is otherwise affirmed. View "Barbara Ann Hollier Trust v. Shack" on Justia Law

Duit, an Oklahoma highway contractor, contracted with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (ASHTD) to reconstruct I-30 between Little Rock and Benton. Duit encountered soil conditions that, it alleges, differed materially from information provided by the ASHTD during bidding. Duit’s claims for compensation were denied by the ASHTD, the Arkansas State Claims Commission, and the General Assembly. Duit sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, citing the “in re Young” exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Duit alleged violations of the Federal Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. 101, and the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses and sought to “enjoin Defendants from accepting federal aid … until . . . they fully comply with the federally mandated differing site clause.” The court dismissed the FAHA claim because that statute is enforced exclusively by an executive agency, dismissed the due process claim because Duit’s interest in future highway contracts is not a protected property interest and because the state appeals process for claim denials satisfies procedural due process requirements. The court declined to dismiss the equal protection claim, concluding Duit sufficiently alleged that the Commission treated out-of-state-contractor Duit differently from similarly situated in-state contractors without a rational reason. The Eighth Circuit held that Duit lacks standing to bring its equal protection claim and that the court erred in not dismissing that claim. View "Duit Constr. Co. Inc. v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Tipton, Gilbert, and Padgett worked for Treadway, under agreements that contained a noncompete provision: when you leave Treadway’s employ, for whatever reason, you will not compete with Treadway … by soliciting or accepting business from Treadway’s customers within your territory … for at least one (1) year after leaving; and . . . you will not solicit the employment of any Treadway representatives for at least one (1) year after leaving. Irby bought Treadway with an assignment of Treadway’s contracts, in 2012. Tipton, Gilbert, and Padgett became Irby employees, keeping essentially the same benefits and seniority. In 2013, the three left Irby to work for Wholesale. Tipton apparently spoke to Gilbert and Padgett about the move in advance. Irby sued, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with a contract. The district court granted summary judgment and awarded the defendants in excess of $200,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding genuine disputes of material fact about whether Wholesale recruited and hired Tipton, Gilbert, and Padgett so that they would solicit or accept business from Irby customers in their former territory within one year. View "Stuart C. Irby Co., Inc. v. Tipton" on Justia Law

Latoya Brown purchased a Mazda 6 from Dick Smith Nissan, Inc. through the dealer's salesman, Robert Hiller. The purchase was contingent on acquiring third-party financing. Due to continuing and unresolved issues with financing, Brown returned the vehicle to Dick Smith. The car was later repossessed and sold by Sovereign Bank with a deficiency against Brown. Brown filed a complaint against Dick Smith and Old Republic Surety Company, the surety on Dick Smith's licensing bond, alleging violations of the South Carolina Dealers Act. The trial judge, in a bench trial, found in favor of Brown and awarded damages plus interest as well as attorney's fees and costs. Dick Smith and Old Republic appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that any misconceptions that Brown had about her financing were caused by Sovereign Bank, not Dick Smith. Despite evidence in the record to support the trial judge's findings of fact, the Court of Appeals ignored those findings and substituted its own. By doing so, the Court of Appeals exceeded its standard of review. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial judge's decision. View "Brown v. Dick Smith Nissan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, property owners, entered into an oral contract with Defendant, a construction firm, for the assembly of a prefabricated house on a lot that they owned. The parties subsequently entered into a second oral agreement for the assembly of a smaller and cheaper home. Defendant failed to complete construction of Plaintiffs’ home as agreed. Citing diversity of citizenship, Plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court alleging breach of contract. Defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract. The jury found Defendant to have defaulted on its contractual obligations and awarded $150,000 in damages. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that it could not be said that no rational jury could have found in favor of Plaintiffs. View "Magee v. BEA Constr. Corp." on Justia Law

Devon acquired the rights to distribute robotic medical devices, CytoCare and i.v. Station, from Robotics. DeViedma, Robotics's general counsel, negotiated the contracts. Each contained an arbitration clause. Robotics later agreed to provide management consulting services through DeViedma. DeViedma allegedly obstructed a possible sub-licensing contract with McKesson; Devon failed to make franchise payments, leading Robotics to draw down a $5 million line of credit from Itochu, guaranteed by Devon. Itochu eventually sued Devon. The parties terminated the management consulting services. Robotics terminated Devon's CytoCare contract and entered into an agreement with McKesson. Robotics also alleged breaches of the i.v. Station agreement. DeViedma e-mailed hospital customers telling them that Devon faced financial difficulties and lacked staff qualified to manage i.v. Station installations. Devon sued DeViedma and McKesson, claiming breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with current and prospective contractual relations, defamation, and conspiracy. The court rejected a motion to dismiss in favor of arbitration. DeViedma did not appeal that order. Extensive litigation followed. DeViedma later moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims for breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contractual relations. The court rejected his arguments in favor of arbitration. The Third Circuit dismissed DeViedma’s interlocutory appeal, rejecting an argument that the denial of summary judgment was an appealable order under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 16(a)(1)(C). View "Devon Robotics LLC v. DeViedma" on Justia Law

Best designs and markets exit signs and emergency lighting. Pace manufactured products to Best’s specifications. Best’s founder taught Pace how to manufacture the necessary tooling. There was no contract prohibiting Pace from competing with Best. By 2004, Best was aware that Pace was selling products identical to those it made for Best to Best’s established customers. Several other problems arose between the companies. When they ended the relationship, Pace was in possession of all of the tooling used to manufacture Best’s products and the cloned products, and Best owed Pace almost $900,000 for products delivered. Pace filed a breach of contract suit. Best requested a setoff of damages for breach of warranty and counterclaimed for breach of contract, tortious interference, misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, and fraud. Pace claimed that Best had misappropriated Pace’s trade secrets and had tortiously interfered with Pace’s contracts. The district court found that Best had breached its contractual obligations by failing to pay, but that Pace was liable for breach of warranties, breach of contract, tortious interference, misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion, and false designation of origin and false advertising under the Lanham Act. The Sixth Circuit affirmed that Pace is liable for breach of contract and tortious interference, but reversed or vacated as to the trade secrets, Lanham Act, conversion, and warranties claims. View "Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting Prods., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2009, Carol McClue was involved in a serious car accident. At the time of the accident, Carol had underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance coverage through Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois. In 2011, Carol was diagnosed with bulbar ALS. In 2013, Carol died from the illness. After the diagnosis, Dan McClue, Carol’s husband, submitted claims to Safeco for UIM benefits for damages associated with Carol’s ALS. Safeco denied the claims. Dan subsequently filed suit against Safeco, asserting that Safeco breached the insurance contract by failing to provide UIM benefits for Carol’s ALS. Before trial, the district court granted Safeco’s motions in limine to exclude expert testimony from two doctors - Dr. John Sabow and Dr. Decontee Jimmeh-Fletcher. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment to Safeco on the grounds that, without the expert testimony, Dan did not have admissible evidence to establish that the car accident caused Carol’s ALS. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s ruling barring Dan from using Dr. Jimmeh-Fletcher’s testimony to establish causation in this case; but (2) reversed the district court’s ruling that Dr. Sabow was not qualified to present expert testimony during trial. View "McClue v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill." on Justia Law

At dispute in this case was a home inspection Don Hall performed of a home purchased by Gregory Hall. Gregory brought this action against Don, the seller of the home, and two real estate brokers, alleging that Defendants failed to disclose material defects in the property. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of all defendants with the exception of Don on the grounds that Gregory received a disclosure statement and had imputed knowledge of the defects. The district court entered default judgment against Don after determining that Don had not filed a sufficient answer to the complaint. After a writ of execution was issued, Don requested that the default judgment be set aside and later sought to claim exemptions. The district court denied the requests. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court striking Don’s motion to set aside default judgment, holding that, under the circumstances of this case and in the interests of justice, Don was entitled to relief from judgment. Remanded. View "Hall v. Hall" on Justia Law