News
[03/09]
SUV backs into Mich. school; 6 students injured
[03/09]
Superintendent accidentally fires gun during class
[03/09]
Park, slain trainer's family want video suppressed
More...
Articles
Class Action Lawsuits
Class action lawsuits are composed of groups of people with the same or similar injuries and/or damages, stemming from the same source. The cause of the injury may be a specific event or incident: contamination from a toxic substance, material or structure; faulty medical treatment or use of the same defective product, drug or device. Usually, the injured parties have sustained fairly minor injuries. Therefore, by combining the individual claims into one action, the claim becomes more practical for the plaintiffs and for the court system. It is more cost effective to litigate all the claims at one time, since the costs of litigation will be paid by the group, not by an individual plaintiff. Additionally, by combining the smaller claims together, they add up and may gain strength in proving the plaintiff’s case to the court.
More...
What is a Toxic Tort?
A toxic tort is a growing area of law that covers a wide variety of injuries due to contamination, toxins and/or faulty medications or drugs. Some examples of injuries that would fall under toxic tort law would be lead poisoning, asbestos related injuries (mesothelioma), contaminated water, contaminated buildings, pesticides, catastrophic events, tobacco, radiation or injuries due to medications or medical devices. There are certain similarities that toxic tort claims share. First, the injury was caused by a dangerous/unsafe substance. Next, persons who came into contact with the substance became at risk for injuries (similar in nature). Usually, the extent of the injuries may not be known for a number of years. Additionally, the persons or entity responsible for the dangerous exposure are often numerous and difficult to establish based on the circumstances of the situation and the type of injury.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[03/09]
Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.
[03/09]
McGuan v. Endovascular Techs., Inc.
In plaintiffs' products liability action against the makers of a device for use by surgeons to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, for injuries suffered after they were implanted with the device, grant of defendants' motion for a summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' fraud claims of FDA violations are preempted under Buckman; 2) the trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants' motion to seal documents.
[03/09]
Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
More...
|
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
Hollis & Wright, P.C., Attorneys at Law, located in Birmingham, Alabama, represent clients throughout Huntsville, Montgomery, Tuscaloosa, Florence, Gadsden, Mobile, Dothan, Auburn, Jefferson County, Madison County, Montgomery County, Tuscaloosa County, Shelby County, Talladega County, and surrounding communities, as well as in Mississippi, Georgia and Florida.
Hollis & Wright, P.C., Attorneys at Law
Suite 1500 Financial Center
505 North 20th Street
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Telephone: 205-588-2865
Facsimile: 205-324-3636
Toll-Free: 888-496-2271
|
