JOCS Attorneys Participate In First Annual CLM Group Admission to the Supreme Court
May 15th, 2011
Steve Schwinn, Esq., a partner in the firm, organized the first annual CLM Group admission to the Supreme Court of the United States in May 2011. During the course of this event, Chief Justice John Roberts granted the motion of James F. Jordan, Esq., one of the founding partners of the firm and presently Of Counsel, to admi…
Read More
Read More
Categories: News
Share
Jordan Coyne & Savits, L.L.P.‘s most recent newsletter, “Extraordinary Writs”, is now available
April 12th, 2011
The most recent issue of Jordan Coyne & Savits, L.L.P.’s newsletter is available here.
Read More
Read More
Foreign subpoenas are still often a foreign concept
March 18th, 2011
Trial lawyers in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area soon realize that almost every case can require discovery across jurisdictional boundaries. For cases where there is diversity or federal question jurisdiction, removal to federal court makes discovery easier. But when removal is not an option, the Uniform Interstate D…
Read More
Read More
Judicial interpretation of "business enterprise" exclusions in lawyers professional liability policies
February 12th, 2011
Contributor: David B. Stratton
It is well-settled that courts will enforce “business enterprise” exclusions, sometimes also called “business pursuit” exclusions, in lawyers professional liability policies. The general approach taken has been to apply the plain meaning of the terms of the exclusions, with reference both to the reas…
Read More
Read More
4th Circuit strictly construes removal deadline where multiple defendants are served
February 8th, 2011
The procedure for removal of a state law claim to federal court is usually simple. After the defendant is served with the complaint, she has 30 days to file a notice of removal, or the case remains in state court. 28 USC sec. 1446. But what if there are multiple defendants who are served with the complaint on different days…
Read More
Read More
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Confirms the Need for Plaintiffs to have Traditional Standing
February 3rd, 2011
The District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”), primarily codified at D.C. Code sec. 28-3904 and sec. 28-3905, provides for sweeping protection against any trade practice deemed “unlawful” in the District of Columbia. The CPPA provides a wide variety of remedies, includi…
Read More
Read More
Breach of employment severance contract - plaintiff’s verdict reversed in Virginia
February 2nd, 2011
In Isle of Wight County v. Nogiec and Small v. Nogiec, Nos. 091693 and 091731 respectfully (Va. Jan. 13, 2011), the Court reversed an award for breach of contract against the County and considered whether statements given to the County’s Board of Supervisors were entitled to absolute privilege. The Plaintiff, after be…
Read More
Read More
Categories: Virginia
Virginia Supreme Court affirms jury verdict of $200,000 in malicious prosecution case
January 23rd, 2011
In O’Connor v. Tice, No. 091941 (Va. Jan. 13, 2011), the Court affirmed a jury verdict for malicious prosecution. The jury awarded $200,000 for malicious prosecution over a dispute concerning about $2300. The plaintiff was a contractor who had been hired to paint a commercial building, and was paid an advance of about…
Read More
Read More
Categories: Virginia
Virginia Supreme Court reaffirms innocent victim of horseplay doctrine in workers compensation law
January 21st, 2011
In Simms v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., No. 091762 (Va. Jan. 13, 2011), the Court considered the issue whether the actual risk test analysis articulated in Hilton v. Martin materially changed the “innocent victim of horseplay” doctrine under Virginia’s workers compensation law. After reviewing the history and poli…
Read More
Read More
Virginia Supreme Court reverses $1,750,000 jury verdict due to errors in admitting expert testimony
January 20th, 2011
In CNH America, LLC v. Smith, No. 091991 (Va. Jan. 13, 2011), the Court reversed a jury verdict of $1,750,000 in a product defect case, on the grounds that the plaintiff’s expert testimony was not based on an adequate foundation. The Court remanded the case for a full retrial on the merits. The plaintiff had been inju…
Read More
Read More
