Case:  Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Linn Energy, LLC
           United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Texas law)
           2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12353; 2014 WL 2925161

Case: Gorman v. City of Opelousas
           Louisiana Supreme Court
           2013-1734 (La. 07/01/14), 2014 La. LEXIS 1573

Case: In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010
          Federal District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
          MDL 2179 (Judge Barbier September 4, 2014)

The Court of Appeals, Division II issued a published opinion today in Vernon v. Aacres All Vest, LLC, Cause No. 44328-7-II, affirming in apart and reversing in part a trial court decision summarily deciding wrongful death and survivorship claims. Henry David Vernon (“David”) was born severely disabled and was completely dependent on others for his health and personal care needs.

Last week, the Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District (Santa Clara), issued an opinion in Old Republic Construction Program Group v. The Boccardo Law Firm, Inc., (June 27, 2014, H037989) __ Cal.App.4th ___, analyzing the anti-SLAPP statute.

Today, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three (LA), issued an opinion in Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Super. Ct. (June 20, 2014, B253290) __ Cal.App.4th ___, analyzing whether summary adjudication can be granted in favor of a plaintiff on liability alone, leaving the resolution of damages to a later trial.

The Court of Appeals, Division II issued a published opinion on August 19, 2014 in Dan’s Trucking, Inc. v. Kerr Contractors, Inc., Cause No. 44342-2-II, which analyzes a request for a trial de novo following an arbitrator’s ruling awarding attorney fees.

The Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion on August 28, 2014 in Johnston-Forbes v. Matsunaga, Cause No. 89625-9, addressing the admissibility of biomechanical engineering expert testimony in an automobile collision case

In recent years, litigants in Nevada have encountered ambiguity in the law when determining whether or not a plaintiff was required to name additional cotortfeasors as defendants in order to avoid the prospect of dismissal for the failure to name a necessary and indispensable party.

In June 2014, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One (San Diego), issued an opinion in Peake v. Underwood (June 25, 2014, D061267) 227 Cal. App. 4th 428 (2014), analyzing Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7, which provides a trial court with discretionary authority to impose sanctions when a party files a pleading that is factually or legally frivolous. (Slip op., p. 2.)