In a groundwater pollution case, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding sanctions against the Water District since it had a reasonable basis for denying requests for admission based on evidence the defendant used contaminants on its property and on expert testimony that that release of those chemicals contaminated the groundwater. Read More
Because the transcript showed the City learned nothing significant or prejudicial during a coerced interview by the police and City Attorney, the City Attorney should not have been disqualified. Read More
Defendant’s repeated kicks and punches of the plaintiff was sufficient evidence of malice and/or intent to injure, thus providing sufficient justification for a punitive damages award. Read More
Motions to quash a subpoena on an internet service provider may be pursued even after the subpoena has been withdrawn, since there is no assurance in a voluntary withdrawal that the subpoena will not be reissued later, further harassing the same party for his exercise of free speech rights. Read More
None of the exceptions to hearsay rule applied to permit admission of plaintiff’s supervisor’s testimony that he had seen defendant’s name on invoices and shipping orders for asbestos-containing pipes. Read More
Extrinsic evidence of trustor’s intent is admissible to shed light on the applicability of the “impossibility limitation” on conditions precedent to dispositions by will or trust. Read More
Defendant-employer was not vicariously liable for an after-work car accident which the defendant’s employee caused while on the phone with another employee, as the call related to personal matters, not work. Read More
The trial court did not err in excluding a non-retained expert’s opinion on causation as it duplicated a retained expert’s more soundly based opinion. Read More
Plaintiff employee was not barred from testifying about her memory of the content of sexually suggestive emails defendant co-worker sent her since the emails themselves had been lost. Read More
A trust may not allow a former trustee to withhold from a successor trustee all communications between that former trustee and the trust’s legal counsel, since the attorney-client privilege vests in the office of the trustee, not in any particular person. Read More
