Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Consent decree that provides for the award of fees if there has been a violation of the agreement by one party does not require an ongoing violation to trigger the possibility of an award.
Courts order that the state party to the agreement ensures treatment of the incarcerated parties to the agreement within a certain timeframe was not a reasonable inference of the parties' agreement, which called for the incarcerated parties to be referred for treatment within that timeframe.
As the employee had expressly agreed to pay the union by authorizing the paycheck deduction, and the contract for representation was valid under the state law of the time, the First Amendment right recognized by the courts after the contract had begun did not require an explicit waiver at the time of contractual formation; even under the new standard, any employee who consents to pay can be bound to the contract.
State law defining a public sector bargaining unit and establishing an exclusive representative organization for the bargaining unit does not violate First Amendment associational rights; plaintiff is not compelled to affiliate with the representative organization, and employees are free to form advocacy groups.
Disaster support agreement between federal agency and state was an enforceable contract, not a gratuitous provision of resources.
Nonfrivolous assertion of contractual breach by the government sufficed for Claims Court jurisdiction.
Request for assistance and project worksheets did not constitute an express contract; as there was no mutual intent to contract, there was not an implied in fact contract.
As a component of local government, hospital's claim to be a third party beneficiary of a contract between the state and the federal agency is sufficient to state a claim, since the contract named the locality.
As the funds were provided to the hospital contingently, and subject to express conditions, the recoupment of the funds was not an illegal exaction.
Although the requested recovery of funds is equitable it is materially indistinguishable from a claim for reimbursement, and the claim is essentially contractual in nature, giving clear jurisdiction to the Claims Court, an adequate non-APA judicial remedy preferred by statute.
The website statement preexisting the nondisparagement agreement that applied to prospective communication, statements, and conduct did not breach the agreement, since the statement was published to the website before the agreement.
Litigation affidavit enjoyed absolute immunity from the nondisparagement terms, since it was relevant and pertinent to the matter before the court.
Statements made to plaintiff's agents posing as prospective employers did not implicate the nondisparagement agreement's limitations on communications with potential employers.
The class claim is sufficiently predominant, since all of the customers--even those who benefited--paid the fee; determining individual statute of limitations issues would be merely ministerial; defendant's general concealment underlay each instance of fraudulent inducement; appraisal variance would be merely ministerial; and the statutory damages are uniform.
Although the agreement's reference to a timely appraisal was insufficient guarantee to create a contract, the taking of a security deposit for the purposes of verifying identity and credit formed a binding contract.
Under the state's law, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is relevant only to the analysis of actual breach of contract.
Concealment of potential improper contact with appraisers was sufficiently proximate to the formation of the agreement with the homeowners to qualify as unconscionable inducement under the state's statute.
Dissent:
Practice was customary in the industry; no actual inducement; communications with the appraiser did not breach the agreement to provide an appraisal.
Actionable refusal of settlement was within the terms of the policy as an act deemed wrongful by timely reporting, despite an earlier holding of the court that the act was ultimately not wrongful as defined by a separate exclusion within the policy.
As a claim is an assertion of an existing right, demands for damages and indemnification prior to the change in the law that created the right of recovery against the plaintiff were not considered claims under the policy.
Completing a form to report tax noncompliance under a statute that authorizes the payment to the reporter of the portion of the monies recovered does not create an enforceable contract with the government; a contract arises only if the reporter and the government specifically negotiate its terms.
As the vested equity valuation was contractually assigned to the Board of Directors, a motion for a discovery continuance to reach outside auditors' valuations of the vested equity was untimely; an appeal challenging the exclusion of evidence must specifically identify the evidence and the legal standard.
Non-zero determinations of vested equity at time of hiring and in subsequent audits did not make the Board's determination of nil value unreasonable.
An unenforceable agreement to later agree on a severance agreement did not create any obligation on either party when severance happened prior to the formation of the agreement.
Claim of fraudulent inducement under state law requires actual reliance.
Misrepresentations of prior employment foreclose equitable relief in quantum meruit.
Discovery stipulation between parties during discovery was inappropriate, as the unilateral declaration of secret materials prevents the court from conducting the necessary public interest balancing when deciding whether the record should be sealed.
Since mutual promises are sufficient consideration under the state's law, there was sufficient consideration for the arbitration agreement.
Revision of the bank account terms to incorporate an arbitration agreement had insufficient mutual assent, as the terms were revised by simple notice and opportunity to cancel, creating a contract of adhesion, since the change in the terms was unreasonable and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Sevier Cnty. Schs. Fed. Credit Union v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
Where the insurance contract defines floods as occurring on normally dry land, the flood exclusion does not encompass boats damaged in harbor; given that plaintiff introduced evidence that the boats were not damaged by the change in water level, summary judgment for the plaintiff was appropriate.
Exclusions drafted within coverage provisions are addressed under the shifting burdens standard of state law; the plaintiff is not required to establish that the exclusion does not apply when establishing coverage.
Agreement reached between parties after summary judgment placing fault for damage on the acts of a third party while liquidating the remaining damages did not undo the grant of summary judgment.
Given intervening state court decisions, the economic loss doctrine (barring recovery in tort from claims arising from a contract) does not bar claims for economic loss under the federal deceptive practices statute.
Gist of the action doctrine does not bar recovery in tort for claims squarely arising in contract, where the contract is collateral to the fraud or negligence.
While there is authority for the idea that a motion to dismiss can be converted to a motion for summary judgment, there is no authority for the opposite, as the cour would be sua sponte lowering the threshold requirements for the movant -- the fact that a cucumber can be made into a pickle doesn't necessarily mean that a pickle can be turned into a cucumber.
District court correctly construed the allegation of misrepresentations in the amended complaint to be a claim for fraud in the inducement (dolo), and correctly applied the sophisticated purchaser defense to determine that the purchaser's reliance was not reasonable.
Government contractor did not waive statutorily mandated offsetting payments in contract terms that elected the governing administrative regulation that prohibited such offsets, since the government counterparty to the contract was required to follow the regulation that was contrary to law.
Government would have to at minimum identify a viable avenue of judicial redress available to contractor at formation.
Tucker Act jurisdiction for an illegal exaction claim requires nonfrivolous claim that the government, in obtaining the money, has violated federal constitution, statute, or regulation -- establishing that the claim is "money mandating" is not a jurisdictional threshhold.
[If I have this right...] Investment bank's payments to noteholders of SPV on the occasion of its pre-petition default can't be recouped in bankruptcy, as the relationship between the bank and the SPV was of the type of asset-exchange swap obligation explicitly immunized from bankruptcy's modification of contractual rights and obligations.
Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. v. Bank of America N.A.
Given the evidentiary proffers of the parties at the preliminary injunction stage, state law compelled the court to attempt a reformation of the noncompete agreement as opposed to a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement on the basis of overbreadth.
District court "misapplied" its discretion by recognizing two contracts in its holding, but only reversing its holding as to one on the motion to reconsider due to the fact that the other party had not argued the second contract; the other party was not sufficiently put on notice by one sentence mentioning the agreement in a brief.
Statute's categorical bar on contractual restrictions on subsequent employment, followed by closely defined exceptions, creates a presumption that the statute ratifies the common law antipathy to such restrictions, rather than a rule of reason.
State consumer protection law in the state law elected in the contract doesn't apply, as there is a common law presumption against its extraterritorial exception, and no conduct harming consumers occurred in the state.
Continued possession of potential trade-secret materials from prior employer insufficient to establish acquisition under the law of the state.
Subsidiary user on a cell phone plan is bound by arbitration agreement referenced in electronic signature at time that the subsidiary purchased the extended service.
Contra proferentum notwithstanding, the arbitration agreement's incorporation of successors and assigns and the inherently durational nature of the contract mean that after-acquired subsidiaries are parties to the arbitration agreement.
Present dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement, given the statutory presumption for arbitration and the terms of the agreement compelling arbitration of all disputes and claims between the parties.