Wednesday, July 23, 2008
News and Information

Latest NewsLegal DefinitionsSeminars & PublicationsClients

If you think that you may have a case, call us at (916) 351-1200 or fill out the form below

Latest News

Latest News

Miller Law, Inc.

Trial Lawyers

Construction Litigation • Toxic Mold • Real Estate • Insurance • Landlord/Tenant

Confidence • Integrity • Results

News

Construction

[07/22] Republicans start arena conversion for convention
[07/17] Single-family construction fell 5.3 pct. in June
[07/17] Outside the Beltway? Out of luck winning contracts

More...

Environment

[07/22] Man finds second long python in Maine in a week
[07/22] Wayward porcupine saved on interstate with shovel
[07/17] Seattle sells 5 of its troubled toilets on eBay

More...

Real Estate

[07/22] Treasury: Swift support needed for mortgage giants
[07/22] Mortgage giant rescue could cost $25b
[07/22] Lawmakers move to curb Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac pay

More...

Insurance

[07/22] UnitedHealth 2Q profit falls on charges, tops view
[07/21] Medically unfit truck drivers still on roads
[07/21] NTSB's 8 proposals to bar medically unfit drivers

More...

Case Summaries

Contracts

[07/23] Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp.
In an employment discrimination case involving an employment agreement containing a mandatory arbitration clause, denial of defendant-employer's motion to compel arbitration and partial summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) for purposes of a breach-of-agreement theory, plaintiff did not properly initiate arbitration under the terms of his employment agreement via a letter he sent; and 2) the district court improperly granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor on the issue of waiver.

[07/23] Magallanes v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co.
Dismissal of an employment-discrimination suit because the parties had settled is reversed where defendant-employer did not meet its burden to prove that plaintiff's attorney had in fact been authorized to enter into a settlement agreement.

[07/22] US v. De La Mata
In a case where the government obtained defendants' promises to convey certain interests in property to the United States, in lieu of a forfeiture trial and sentence, an order granting the government's motion for a "final order of forfeiture" is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) individual defendants and corporate defendants were properly before the court of appeals; 2) the circuit court rejects individual defendants' argument that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the government's motion sought relief in a criminal case via amended sentences; but 3) corporate defendants were not parties to individual defendants' agreements and thus retained certain property interests.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

The attorneys of Miller Law, Inc., in Sacramento, California, represent clients from communities such asFolsom, Stockton, Napa, Vacaville, Elk Grove, Fairfield, Roseville, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Fresno, Yuba City, Vallejo, Fremont, Hayward, Los Angeles, and Redding, in counties including Sacramento County, Solano County, San Joaquin County, Yolo County, Sutter County, El Dorado County, and Placer County. Also serving Nevada clients in communities such as Reno, Las Vegas, Lake Tahoe, and Carson City.