-
Pulte Home Corp. v. Parex, Inc.
-
D.C. McClain, Inc. v. Arlington County
-
Bindra v.
Michael Bowman & Associates, Inc.
-
Bindra v.
Michael Bowman & Associates, Inc.
-
Smith v. Nonken
-
Powell v. Gilbane
Bldg. Co.
-
Miller v. Wingate Inns Intl., Inc.,
Pulte Home Corp. v. Parex, Inc.,
265 Va. 518, 579 S.E. 2d 188, 50 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 766 (April 17,
2003)
We successfully obtained
dismissal at the trial court level of a builder’s claim against a
remote synthetic stucco manufacturer. On appeal, the Supreme Court
of Virginia upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the claims which
sounded in implied indemnification, breach of implied warranty,
contribution, and breach of express warranty.
D.C. McClain, Inc. v. Arlington County
, 249 Va. 131, 452 S.E. 2d 659 (Jan. 13, 1995).
At trial, a jury awarded a
significant verdict in favor of a contractor against Arlington County, Virginia. Arlington
County in turn passed through liability for a portion of this award
to the engineer. As a result of motions, the trial court set the
verdict aside based on the terms of the contract, the lack of proper
expert testimony, and expiration of the statute of limitations. On
appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld the trial court’s
decision to set the verdict aside.
Top of page
Bindra v. Michael Bowman & Associates,
Inc., 2002 WL 481225, 17 VLW 355 (Feb. 11, 2002
Va. Cir. Ct.)
The trial court again sustained our client’s
demurrer to cross-claims asserted by a builder against a remote
stucco manufacturer.
Bindra v. Michael Bowman & Associates,
Inc., 58 Va. Cir. 47, 2001 WL 1829999, 17 VLW 142
(Sept. 19, 2001 Va. Cir. Ct.)
The trial court sustained our client’s
demurrer to cross-claims asserted by a builder against a stucco
manufacturer.
Top
of page
Smith v. Nonken,
2001 WL 534137, additional opinions at
VLW 001-8-044 (April 9, 2001 VLW), VLW
000-8-276 (Sept. 11, 2000 VLW), petition for
appeal denied, (Jan. 5, 2001 Va. Cir. Ct.)
The trial court sustained the
demurrers of a real estate agent and a seller to a claim for alleged
fraud and constructive fraud associated with the listing of a
residential property.
Powell v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.,
34 Va. Cir. 12, 1994 WL 1031118 (March 31, 1994 Va. Cir. Ct.)
The trial court dismissed a plaintiff’s
personal injury claims against a professional engineer based on
statute of limitations grounds.
Miller
v. Wingate Inns Intl., Inc.,
Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) P 12,579
(E.D. Cal. 2003).
A
prospective
hotel franchisee adequately alleged that a franchisor
committed fraud and violated the California Franchise Investment Law
and "little FTC Act " for purposes of surviving a motion to dismiss.
The gravamen of the potential franchisee's allegations was that the
franchisor tricked him into signing a franchise agreement and paying
$ 9000 toward an initiation fee when instead the plaintiff believed
he was signing a franchise application and making a $ 9000 deposit
so that the franchisor would begin the approval process. The court
could not determine beyond doubt that the prospective franchisee
could prove no set of facts in support of its claims and its
complaint satisfied the liberal federal notice pleading standards.
Moreover, the plaintiff's fraud allegations were sufficiently
specific.
The above cases
reflect achievements of the firm's attorneys while associated with
Hughes & Associates as well as with their former firms. |
