30 results for 'cat:"Vehicle" AND cat:"Jurisdiction"'.
J. Fleissig granted a driver’s motion to remand, sending the matter back to the circuit court of St. Louis, Missouri, in this lawsuit against a logistics company and its truck driver stemming from a car collision. The logistics company was unable to show that a non-diverse insurance company was fraudulently joined. Removal was not objectively unreasonable, so the request for attorney fees is denied.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Missouri, Judge: Fleissig, Filed On: September 6, 2024, Case #: 4-24cv1022, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Insurance, vehicle, jurisdiction
J. Garcia finds that the county court properly dismissed the car owners' petition, which concerned the towing of their vehicle, based on a lack of jurisdiction. The car owners argue that they were not required to post an appeal bond following a tow hearing before the justice court. However, their petition "raised new causes of action that were not within the scope of a tow hearing." Accordingly, the county court lacked jurisdiction for de novo review. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Garcia, Filed On: September 5, 2024, Case #: 05-23-00635-CV, Categories: vehicle, jurisdiction
J. Rivas-Molloy finds that the trial court improperly denied the relators’ petition to dismiss a employee’s motor vehicle negligence suit. The employee did not exhaust all administrative remedies, specifically pursuing workers’ compensation, before filing his suit. As such, the trial court lacked jurisdiction on the employee’s claims, and should have dismissed the case. Reversed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Rivas-Molloy, Filed On: August 20, 2024, Case #: 01-23-00616-CV, Categories: vehicle, jurisdiction, Workers' Compensation
J. Guerra finds that the trial court properly dismissed an automotive repair shop’s collateral attack on a customer's suit. Although the trial court had previously stayed the customer’s suit pending arbitration, that did not void the trial court’s subsequent default judgment against the shop for failing to appear at trial. The shop’s failure to pay returned the case to the trial court, thus granting it the jurisdiction for default judgment. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Guerra, Filed On: August 13, 2024, Case #: 01-23-00535-CV, Categories: vehicle, jurisdiction, Contract
J. Higginson finds the district court improperly found for an insurer. The truck driver who was injured in an accident caused by the other, now-deceased driver had $50,000 in UIM coverage from the insurer on his personal vehicle, which was not involved in the accident. He sued all involved insurers. Although state code bars insureds from stacking multiple coverages issued under a single policy or multiple coverages the insured holds, it does not prevent the insured from recovering under a personal UIM policy if he also received UIM benefits from a third-party insurer. This is consistent with the purpose of UIM insurance, in which individuals pay extra to protect themselves in such scenarios. Vacated.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Higginson , Filed On: August 6, 2024, Case #: 24-30014, Categories: Insurance, vehicle, jurisdiction
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Whitney dismisses a motorist’s motion to amend his complaint regarding an accident in which another driver crashed into his car, causing injuries and damages. The motorist’s first amendment was untimely, so filing this second amendment is unavailing. Also, because the motorist brings a state law negligence claim, this court lacks jurisdiction over it.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Whitney, Filed On: August 2, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv816, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: vehicle, Negligence, jurisdiction
J. Horan finds that a maintenance company has not provided sufficient evidence that the company’s operational support manager, a non-diverse defendant who defeats diversity jurisdiction, has been improperly joined, in a case in which a decedent was killed while operating a street sweeping vehicle the maintenance company allegedly knew to be dangerous. The motion to remand by the decedent’s family is granted but the family may not recover attorney fees.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Horan, Filed On: July 2, 2024, Case #: 3:24cv178, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: vehicle, jurisdiction, Attorney Fees
J. Marks denies a Tennessee citizen’s motion for remand back to state court, in this traffic accident lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company, two trucking companies, two insurers, three Florida citizens and an Alabama citizen. She alleges that the Alabama citizen destroys diversity after the pharmaceutical company removed the case to this court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. She failed to raise a procedural challenge in the motion to remand and did not refute the citizenship claims of any other parties. Therefore, this court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Court: USDC Middle District of Alabama, Judge: Marks, Filed On: June 14, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv683, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: vehicle, Negligence, jurisdiction
J. Lauck grants the RV company's motion to transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan. The purchaser experienced issues with
the Spyder touch panel built into an interior wall of the RV that controls most of the electrical functions of the RV. After going through the process of having the company repair the RV before returning it, only for it to eventually stop working again three times, the purchaser filed suit. A clause in the sales agreement explicitly states that all litigation has to be handled in Michigan.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Virginia, Judge: Lauck , Filed On: June 7, 2024, Case #: 3:24cv63, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: vehicle, jurisdiction, Warranty
[Amended.] J. Simon adds footnotes to a previously published opinion with no change in judgment. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to order restitution after the end of defendant's probation on a hit-and-run conviction. Where a restitution order is for losses caused by a collision and not for the criminal act of leaving the scene, the order is a condition of probation and jurisdiction may not extend beyond the termination of probation. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simon, Filed On: May 23, 2024, Case #: A167703, Categories: Restitution, vehicle, jurisdiction
J. Pulliam remands a car accident lawsuit to state court because, while there is a genuine factual dispute over who owns a cab involved in the accident, the court at this point “must resolve all factual issues, doubts as to the propriety of removal, and ambiguities in favor of” the suing parties, and this federal court therefore lacks jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Western District of Texas , Judge: Pulliam, Filed On: May 15, 2024, Case #: 5:24cv320, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Tort, vehicle, jurisdiction
J. Bahr finds that the district court improperly granted summary judgment to a business in a matter involving a vehicle which struck a pedestrian in front of the business. The court treated the individual's request to adopt a stipulation as a type of motion which it holds no jurisdiction over. The district court misapplied the law when it treated the request as the motion in question. Reversed.
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court, Judge: Bahr, Filed On: May 2, 2024, Case #: 2024ND81, Categories: vehicle, jurisdiction
J. Simons finds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order restitution after the end of defendant's probation on a hit-and-run conviction. Where a restitution order is for losses caused by a collision and not for the criminal act of leaving the scene, the order is a condition of probation and jurisdiction may not extend beyond the termination of probation. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Simons, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: A167703, Categories: Restitution, vehicle, jurisdiction
J. Cook grants a driver’s motion to vacate a lower court order declining to dismiss personal injury claims against him stemming from a motor vehicle accident. The driver lives in another state and the motor-vehicle collision at issue occurred in Mississippi, so the lower court lacks jurisdiction.
Court: Alabama Supreme Court, Judge: Cook, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: SC-2023-0550, Categories: vehicle, Damages, jurisdiction
J. Pohlman finds that the appeals court properly held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear defendant's appeal of a conviction for failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. Though appellate review is available even without an explicit district court ruling on a statute's constitutionality, he did not adequately raise his due process argument at trial such that the appeals court could find that the district court had made an implicit ruling on the statute's constitutionality. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Supreme Court, Judge: Pohlman, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 20230112, Categories: vehicle, jurisdiction, Due Process
J. Pate grants the suing driver motion to remand his vehicle collision claims back to the circuit court of Macon County, Alabama. The sued driver had this case removed alleging diversity jurisdiction, but has not met the burden of proof nor has he shown preponderance of evidence.
Court: USDC Middle District of Alabama, Judge: Pate, Filed On: February 2, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv654, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: vehicle, Negligence, jurisdiction
[Consolidated.] J. Robinson finds that the district court properly held that a truck driver injured in a car collision in New York could not recover underinsured motorist damages when his employer's insurer failed to provide coverage. New York law requires insurers to offer supplemental coverage to in-state insureds, but statute does not support plaintiff's effort to reform the contract to include such. Meanwhile, questions must be certified to the Indiana Supreme Court concerning coverage laws in that state, where the truck was registered. Affirmed in part.
Court: 2nd Circuit, Judge: Robinson, Filed On: January 23, 2024, Case #: 22-863(L), Categories: Insurance, vehicle, jurisdiction
J. Coogler grants the school district, its board members and two bus drivers’ motion to dismiss this denial of access to courts and racial discrimination claims stemming from a car collision. Two Black women allege that a bus driver was being trained by another when the bus veered over and ran the vehicle off the road hitting a concrete barrier. The women state they would have received better treatment if they were white but, fail to support the inference of discrimination. The court denies exercising supplement jurisdiction over this case.
Court: USDC Northern District of Alabama , Judge: Coogler, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 7:23cv1082, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: vehicle, Negligence, jurisdiction
J. Longoria finds that the lower court properly denied the appellant company's second amended special appearance in this lawsuit stemming from an automobile accident that allegedly arose from a fuel pump failure. The allegations are sufficient to bring the defendant company, which is a South Korean automobile parts manufacturer, "under the long-arm statute." Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Longoria, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 13-22-00176-CV, Categories: vehicle, Product Liability, jurisdiction
J. Palafox finds a lower court ruled correctly in denying special appearance in a lawsuit stemming from a car crash. The trucking company argued this court did not have jurisdiction over the matter, but in fact the trucking company “purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas” and had the minimum contacts necessary for this court to have jurisdiction. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Palafox, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00052-CV, Categories: vehicle, Damages, jurisdiction
J. Palafox finds a lower court ruled correctly in denying special appearance in a lawsuit stemming from a car crash. The trucking company argued this court did not have jurisdiction over the matter, but in fact the trucking company “purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Texas” and had the minimum contacts necessary for this court to have jurisdiction. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Palafox, Filed On: October 19, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00066-CV, Categories: vehicle, Damages, jurisdiction
Per curiam, the appeals court grants the trucking companies’ petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial courts denial of their motion to transfer venue in this suit regarding a chain-reaction accident which resulted in the death of a driver. The driver who was first rear-ended filed suit against a third driver who struck the first drivers while they were disabled on the side of the road. The owner of the first at-fault vehicle and the estate of that driver were added as third-party defendants. This case was transferred to the county where a fourth driver’s lawsuit was already pending. Venue is proper in that county as a substantial part of the events occurred there, and all parties agreed to the transfer. The court abused its discretion by denying the request to transfer.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 11, 2023, Case #: 12-23-00210-CV, Categories: vehicle, jurisdiction