|
|
|
McKENNON LAW GROUP PC.
Law Firm News |
2014/03/21 13:19
|
Insurance Bad Faith, ERISA and Business Litigation Attorneys
McKennon Law Group PC has offices throughout California, and handles cases all over the State, including the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, San Francisco and the Central Valley.
When you need an attorney, choosing the right law firm is the most important decision you will make. We founded McKennon Law Group PC for one purpose: to provide our clients targeted, effective representation geared to get the best possible results. Our single-minded focus is to achieve our clients’ objectives in an aggressive yet professional manner.
We are counted among California’s leading insurance, ERISA, business, and consumer attorneys. We have arbitrated, tried, appealed, and resolved hundreds of disputes on all lines of insurance - life, health, disability, property/casualty, commercial general liability, professional liability, officers and directors liability, employment practices liability, homeowners and business owners property and liability. We have also litigated disputes involving insurance and real estate agent/broker liability, class actions, serious injury and wrongful death, and other consumer and general business matters, and we have recovered millions of dollars in judgments and settlements for our clients.
Office
20321 SW Birch St., Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court sides with S. Ind. city in man's injury suit
Law Firm News |
2014/01/06 11:30
|
The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling that the Ohio River city of Madison is not liable for injuries a man suffered when he tripped on a sewer grate.
Brad Haskin suffered a ruptured Achilles tendon in July 2008 when he tripped on the grate while walking from Madison's riverfront. He sued Madison in 2009, alleging it was negligent in maintaining the sewer drain and did not properly illuminate it.
The Madison Courier reports a Jefferson County judge had ruled that under Indiana law a city cannot be held liable for injuries caused by infrastructure like the grate that had been unchanged for 20 or more years.
The appellate agreed with that ruling, finding that the city was immune from liability in the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court Refuses to Block Texas Abortion Law
Law Firm News |
2013/11/22 10:03
|
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to continue enforcing abortion restrictions that opponents say have led more than a third of the state's clinics to stop providing abortions.
The justices voted 5-4 to leave in effect a provision requiring doctors who perform abortions in clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
The court's conservative majority refused the plea of Planned Parenthood and several Texas abortion clinics to overturn a preliminary federal appeals court ruling that allowed the provision to take effect. The four liberal justices dissented.
The case remains on appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. That court is expected to hear arguments in January, and the law will remain in effect at least until then.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the liberal justices, said he expects the issue to return to the Supreme Court once the appeals court issues its final ruling.
The Texas Legislature approved the requirement for admitting privileges in July.
In late October, days before the provision was to take effect, a trial judge blocked it, saying it probably is unconstitutional because it puts a "substantial obstacle" in front of a woman wanting an abortion.
But a three-judge appellate panel moved quickly to overrule the judge. The appeals court said the law was in line with Supreme Court rulings that have allowed for abortion restrictions so long as they do not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Writing for the appeals court, Judge Priscilla Owen noted that the Texas law would not end the procedure, only force women to drive a greater distance to obtain one.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in support of the high court order Tuesday, said the clinics could not overcome a heavy legal burden against overruling the appeals court. The justices may not do so "unless that court clearly and demonstrably erred," Scalia said in an opinion that was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy did not write separately or join any opinion Tuesday, but because it takes five votes to overturn the appellate ruling, it is clear that they voted with their conservative colleagues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fla. appeals court lifts temporary ban on auto law
Law Firm News |
2013/10/25 15:27
|
A Florida appeals court on Wednesday cleared the way for the enforcement of a controversial auto insurance law that backers say was designed to curb fraudulent claims.
The 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that Tallahassee Circuit Judge Terry Lewis was wrong when he sided with physical therapists and other health care providers challenging the 2012 law.
In March, Lewis ruled that modifications to some of the key provisions of Florida's no-fault auto insurance law were possibly unconstitutional, and he ordered a temporary ban on those provisions.
Lewis suspended the part of the law that requires a finding of emergency medical condition and prohibits payments to acupuncturists, massage therapists and chiropractors. He said the law violates the right of access to the courts found in the Florida Constitution.
But the appeals court contended that those seeking to block enforcement of the law had not shown they were actually being harmed by it.
"Without showing of an actual denial of access to courts ... the provider plaintiffs lack standing to assert this claim," states the unsigned opinion.
The ruling, however, does not end the ongoing lawsuit challenging the new law.
Florida legislators passed the state's no-fault insurance law — also known as Personal Injury Protection — in the early 1970s to ensure that anyone hurt in an automobile wreck could obtain medical treatment without delay, while waiting for a case to be resolved. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal Marketing News RSS
