Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Columbus Cheer Company ("CCC") entered into a rental contract for the use of school facilities. Subsequently, CCC was informed that Columbus Municipal School District ("CMSD") would not honor the contract with CCC. CCC filed a complaint against CMSD. The complaint read in part: "[p]laintiff Columbus Cheer Company is a profit corporation licensed to due [sic] business in the state of Mississippi . . . ." The prayer sought judgment for plaintiff (CCC). Defendants filed their motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting that CCC was an administratively dissolved corporation; therefore, CCC could not have entered into a valid contract with CMSD, and CCC did not possess the requisite legal status to initiate suit. The trial court entered an order granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. CCC appealed, and the issues on appeal were: (1) whether a dissolved corporation could pursue a legal action; and if not, (2) could the corporation's shareholders pursue the same action in their own name? The Supreme Court answered both questions "no."View "Columbus Cheer Company v. City of Columbus" on Justia Law

At issue in this lawsuit was whether workers engaged in testing and inspection of fire protection equipment are covered by New York’s prevailing wage statute. The New York State Department of Labor issued an opinion letter stating that the workers were covered but that the opinion shall be applied prospectively. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified to the Court of Appeals a question regarding what deference a court should pay to an agency’s decision, made for its own enforcement purposes, to construe a statute prospectively only. In its amicus brief in the Court of Appeals, the Department asserted that no deference was due to it by the courts deciding the litigation. The Court of Appeals answered (1) courts should give an agency no more deference than it claims for itself; and (2) a party’s commitment to pay prevailing wages pursuant to the prevailing wage statute binds the party to comply with the statute as correctly interpreted, whether or not the correct interpretation was known to the parties at the time of contracting.View "Ramos v. SimplexGrinnell LP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Paul Ellington, an heir and grandson of Duke Ellington, filed this breach of contract action to recover royalties allegedly due under a royalty provision contained in a 1961 United States copyright renewal Agreement between Duke Ellington and Mills Music, Inc., now EMI Music, Inc. The Agreement assigned to a “Second Party” - defined as consisting of a group of music publishers including Mills Music - the right to renew the copyright to certain music compositions written by Duke Ellington, subject to the payment of royalties. The royalty provision of the Agreement required the Second Party to pay Duke Ellington and named members of his family a percentage of the net revenue received from a foreign publication of the musical publication. Plaintiff claimed that by using affiliated foreign subpublishers, EMI breached the Agreement by diluting Plaintiff’s share of the royalties. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the disputed terms of the Agreement were clear and unambiguous and that the Appellate Division correctly held that Plaintiff did not state a cause of action for breach of the Agreement.View "Ellington v. EMI Music, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose from Agrisource’s breach of contract claim against Robert Johnson (Johnson). Johnson argued that he was not liable on the contract because he was an agent for a disclosed principal named “Johnson Grain Inc.” which was owned by Neil Brown. Agrisource leased a grain elevator in Ririe from Johnson’s father, Wydell. For several years prior to 2006, Johnson was Agrisource’s employee and managed the elevator. Agrisource terminated its elevator lease in summer 2006, and Johnson was then unemployed. Brown purchased the grain elevator in August 2006 from Wydell. Brown was Johnson Grain Inc.’s majority shareholder from August 2006 through December 2007. Johnson and Brown opened a business checking account under Johnson Grain Inc.’s name with both men as signatories. Johnson entered into two contracts to sell durum wheat to Agrisource. Agrisource did not receive 15,527.87 bushels of wheat promised by Johnson Grain. Agrisource contacted both Johnson and Brown for two years about the undelivered wheat. Neither party delivered the wheat, so in 2009 Agrisource purchased wheat elsewhere. This resulted in $51,241.97 in damages. In 2010, Agrisource filed a claim alleging breach of the 2007 contract against Brown, Brown’s wife, and Neil Brown, Inc., Johnson, Johnson’s wife, and Johnson’s corporation as defendants. Agrisource alleged that Johnson was an individual doing business as Johnson Grain when he entered into the contract. Johnson appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Agrisource, Inc. The district court held that there was no genuine disputed issue of material fact as to Johnson’s lack of disclosure of his agency and alleged principal. Johnson argued on appeal that Agrisource had notice that Johnson was the principal’s agent because Agrisource should have known Johnson was an agent and disputed issues of fact existed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Agrisource and the denial of Johnson’s third motion to reconsider. However, the Court vacated the district court’s denial of Johnson’s request for I.R.C.P. 60(b) relief and remanded for the district court to analyze Johnson’s third affidavit in the context of Johnson’s request for I.R.C.P. 60(b) relief.View "Agrisource, Inc v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc.formed a general partnership named MRI Associates. The parties executed a written partnership agreement for the purpose acquiring and operating diagnostic and therapeutic devices, equipment, and accessories, beginning with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. MRI Associates formed two limited partnerships: MRI Limited Partnership (which owned and operated an MRI scanner located on Saint Alphonsus' campus) (“MRI Center”); and MRI Mobile Limited Partnership (which owned and operated mobile MRI scanners) (“MRI Mobile”). For decades, a group of radiologists known as Gem State Radiologists had interpreted medical images pursuant to a contract that gave them the exclusive right to serve the radiological needs of patients of Saint Alphonsus. After the formation of MRI Associates, they interpreted MRI scans performed at MRI Center. In 1998, the Radiologists began planning to construct and operate an outpatient facility in Boise that was located away from the hospital. The proposed facility would provide a full range of medical imaging services, including MRI imaging. There were negotiations among the Radiologists, Saint Alphonsus, and MRI Associates to have one medical imaging entity, but those negotiations were unsuccessful. There was evidence that Saint Alphonsus was negotiating against MRI Associates with the Radiologists. In 1999, the Radiologists formed Intermountain Medical Imaging, LLC, (“IMI”), and on September 1, 1999, they opened their facility. Saint Alphonsus began negotiating with the Radiologists to partner with them in the imaging center. In 2001, Saint Alphonsus became a member of IMI. IMI opened another facility in Meridian. In 2004, Saint Alphonsus gave notice to MRI Associates that it would dissociate from the partnership. Under the partnership agreement, upon dissociation Saint Alphonsus could not compete with MRI Associates for a period of one year. Saint Alphonsus then filed this action seeking to recover the value of its partnership interest from MRI Associates, and MRI Associates responded by filing a multi-count counterclaim and claims against third parties. The third-party claims were ultimately dismissed. The jury found Saint Alphonsus liable on all causes of action, and MRI Associates was awarded a judgment in the sum of $36.3 million. That judgment was vacated on appeal, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The case was again tried to a jury. The jury found in favor of the MRI Entities on each of the claims. Under the judgment entered by the district court, the awards under each claim for relief were in the alternative. The highest award to each of the MRI Entities was: $3,906,338 to MRI Associates; $25,828,208 to MRI Center; and $22,349,967 to MRI Mobile, which totaled $52,084,513. On its complaint, Saint Alphonsus was awarded $4.6 million against MRI Associates. Saint Alphonsus appealed, and the MRI Entities cross-appealed. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court.View "St. Alphonsus Diversified Care v. MRI Associates, LLP" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a contract dispute when Robert Coleman, Profits Plus Capital Management, LLC (“Profits Plus”), and Dollars and Sense Growth Fund Limited Partnership (“Dollars and Sense”) filed a claim for declaratory judgment against Jeffrey Podesta and Street Search, LLC. Coleman, Profits Plus, and Dollars and Sense sought a judgment declaring that they did not have a contract with either Podesta or Street Search. Podesta and Street Search then counterclaimed seeking damages for breach of contract, fraud, constructive fraud, and breach of fiduciary duties. Ultimately, only Podesta and Street Search’s breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims went to the jury, which decided those claims in favor of Coleman, Profits Plus, and Dollars and Sense. Podesta and Street Search now appeal a number of the district court’s decisions made before, during, and after trial. We affirm the district court’s decisions.View "Profits Plus Capital Mgmt. v. Podesta" on Justia Law

An Insurer issued a life insurance policy to an Insured. After the Insured died, the Insurer refused to pay the death benefit to Plaintiff, the Insured’s widow, and rescinded the life insurance policy based on its discovery that the Insured had failed to disclose that he had undergone certain medical procedures. Plaintiff sued the Insurer and the medical records contractor from whom the Insurer requested the Insured’s medical records. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, concluding (1) the Insured’s failure to disclose the medical procedures made his statements willfully false or intentionally misleading as a matter of law; and (2) a patient does not have a cause of action under Minn. Stat. 144.298(2) for withholding a medical record that the patient authorized to be released. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) rescission of a life insurance policy requires proof of the insured’s subjective intent to deceive, and there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the intent of the Insured in this case; and (2) a patient does not have a private right of action under section 144.298(2) when a person releases fewer medical records than authorized by a patient’s consent.View "Larson v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In 2011, nClosures and Block began a business relationship in which nClosures designed and Block manufactured metal enclosures for electronic tablets, such as iPads. The parties signed a confidentiality agreement; nClosures then divulged its designs for the enclosure device to Block for manufacture. The first device, the Rhino Elite, entered the market for sale in October 2011. By March 2012, however, Block developed its own competing device, the Atrio. nClosures sued, alleging breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court granted summary judgment to Block on both claims, but denied Block attorney fees. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that no reasonable jury could find that nClosures took reasonable steps to keep its proprietary information confidential, so that the confidentiality agreement was unenforceable and that no reasonable jury could find that a partnership existed between nClosures and Block that could give rise to a viable breach of fiduciary duty claim.View "nClosures Inc. v. Block & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose when defendant entered into a settlement agreement to sell her property to Blueberry and then refused to consummate the sale. The trial court entered judgment pursuant to the terms of the agreement and ordered defendant to complete the sale. On appeal, defendant challenged the trial court's post-judgment order appointing the clerk of the court as an elisor to execute the escrow agreement on behalf of defendant. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, concluding that the trial court's order was proper under Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(4), which empowers the court to compel obedience to its judgments.View "Blueberry Properties v. Chow" on Justia Law

Roger and Barbara Stephens owned a parcel of real property consisting of about 270 acres on the west side of the highway and another parcel consisting of about 83 acres on the east side of the highway. They hired a realtor to sell the parcel on the west side of the highway. The realtor asked Northern Title Company of Idaho, Inc., to begin the initial title work for a sale of the property, including preparing a legal description for the sale of the parcel on the west side of the highway. Stephen Cummings noticed a "For Sale" sign on the Stephenses' property. Cummings negotiated to purchase the Stephens' property. He was faxed a copy of the commitment for title insurance issued in connection with the transaction. The legal description in the document included the Stephenses' property on both sides of the highway and two additional parcels they did not own. Based upon the legal description in those documents, Cummings believed that the property being sold included both parcels of the Stephenses' property. Northern Title discovered that the legal description it had prepared for use in the real estate contract and its title commitment for that transaction erroneously included the Stephenses' real property located east of the highway and two parcels of land they did not own. The legal description consisted of five paragraphs, each describing a separate parcel of real property. In an effort to correct that error, Northern Title created a revised legal description by inserting between the first and second paragraphs the words, "Except all of that portion of the following described land lying easterly of U.S. Highway 30." That change excluded the two parcels of property not owned by the Stephenses, but it did not exclude their land lying east of the highway because it was described in the first paragraph. On the date of closing, Northern Title recorded a warranty deed (Original Deed) granting to Cummings the real property described in the revised legal description, which was attached to the deed as Exhibit A. The legal description included the Stephenses' property on the east side of the highway. Mr. Stephens went to the county courthouse to pay the real estate taxes on the 83 acres of land east of the highway and was informed that he no longer owned that property. Cummings filed this action against Mr. Stephens over the erroneous deed. Stephens answered, denying Cummings's claims, and filed a third-party claim against Northern Title. He later dropped his third-party claim in exchange for Northern Title agreeing to indemnify him from any losses. Stephens then filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that there was a mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake in the legal description of the real property being sold. The district court held that there was a genuine issue of fact regarding mutual mistake, but it granted the motion on the ground that the undisputed evidence showed a unilateral mistake. One of the realtors had filed an affidavit stating that prior to the sale he had told Mr. Cummings that only the land west of the highway was being sold, and Mr. Cummings did not deny that fact. Cummings successfully moved for reconsideration, with the district court finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to what Cummings had been told about what property he was purchasing. Cummings then amended his complaint, adding Northern Title as a defendant and alleging that by recording the Correction Deed, Stephens and Northern Title breached the warranties of title in the Original Deed, converted the 83 acres lying east of the highway, and slandered Cummings's title to the real property. The district court granted Stephens's motion for involuntary dismissal as to all of the claims against him. And in its written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court denied all of Cummings's claims against Northern Title except one. It found that Northern Title acted negligently as a title and abstract company, and it awarded Cummings damages in the sum of $50,000, which was the sum he had paid to obtain an assignment of its contract to purchase the Stephenses' property. The court awarded Mr. Stephens costs and attorney fees against Cummings, and it awarded Mr. Cummings costs and attorney fees against Northern Title. Mr. Cummings appealed and Northern Title cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Cummings' claims against Stephens, and reversed claims against Northern Title on the ground that it assumed the duty of being an abstractor of title.View "Cummings v. Stephens" on Justia Law