Gilman, McLaughlin & Hanrahan LLP - Counselors At Law - (617) 227-9999
Firm OverviewAttorneysPractice AreasOur ClientsRepresentative CasesReferralsResourcesContact

Practice Areas
General and Complex Litigation

Real Estate, Land Use & Development

Employment Law and Labor Relations

Family Law & Domestic Relations

Corporate Law

Construction, Architectural and Engineering Contracts

Landlord-Tenant




e-Newsletter



Gilman, McLaughlin & Hanrahan LLP
101 Merrimac Street
Suite 800
P.O. Box 9601
Boston, MA 02114-9601

Phone: (617) 227-9999
Fax: (617) 227-7177
E-mail: Contact Us


Search

Other firms have cases, we have clients.
Resources

Findlaw News and Case Summaries

News

Real Estate

[07/24] Existing home sales fall 2.6 percent in June
[07/23] Paulson: Rescue bill key to solving housing crisis
[07/23] Congress moves to help homeowners avoid foreclosures
[07/23] President Bush drops opposition to housing bill
[07/22] Treasury: Swift support needed for mortgage giants

More...

Litigation

[07/24] 50 Cent sues Taco Bell over ad campaign
[07/23] Judge to lift ban on building Calif sports center
[07/22] HP-EDS deal price at issue in court hearing
[07/22] Court tosses FCC 'wardrobe malfunction' fine
[07/21] NTSB's 8 proposals to bar medically unfit drivers

More...

Business

[07/14] Doctors hopeful easier blood thinners are nearing
[07/11] Fire engulfs commercial boatyard on Maine coast
[07/08] State ethics commission probes WVU degree scandal
[07/02] Fugitive hedge-fund swindler surrenders in Mass.
[06/30] Oil is making millionaires in North Dakota

More...

Labor

[07/08] NFL hires Pa. police chief for security job
[07/21] Fired worker accused of trying to cut boss' power
[07/18] Daytona Beach cop fired for demanding free coffee
[07/18] Purdue panel finds misconduct by fusion scientist
[07/24] Schwarzenegger threatens minimum wage for workers

More...

Case Summaries

Family Law

[07/22] In re Esmeralda S.
Juvenile court's order terminating defendant-mother's parental rights to her child is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendant's due process rights were violated when the juvenile court appointed her a guardian ad litem; and 2) the juvenile court did not properly inquire into her and the minor's father's possible American Indian ancestry for purposes of complying with Indian Child Welfare Act.

[07/18] In re Brandon T.
Order terminating mother's parental rights over her child is affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence that the minor was specifically adoptable by his relative caretakers; 2) the Indian Child Welfare Act does not require more than one expert at a section 366.26 hearing; 3) there was sufficient evidence that continued custody would result in serious emotional or physical harm to the minor; and 4) mother was not prejudiced by a lack of evidence in regard to prevailing social and cultural standards of the minor's tribe.

More...

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.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[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.

More...

Commercial Law

[07/22] California Dep't of Water Res. v. Powerex Corp.
In a case arising out of the 2000-2001 California energy crisis, an order remanding the case to state court is reversed and remanded where: 1) review of a district court's decision to decline an exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is not barred by 28 U.S.C. section 1447(d); 2) in light of certain Supreme Court precedent, there is jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1291 to review the remand order; and 3) defendant, a Canadian corporation that markets and distributes electric power, is an organ of British Columbia, and thus falls within the definition of "foreign state" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and is entitled to a federal bench trial.

[07/21] Bandana Trading Co., Inc. v. Quality Infusion Care, Inc.
In an action for breach of contract, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the trial court erred when it refused to remove a juror for misconduct after the juror applauded by clapping her hands during defendant's rebuttal argument; 2) defendant was entitled to a new trial because the same juror committed misconduct during deliberations when she injected technical knowledge into the deliberations, intimidating other jurors and rushing them into a verdict.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[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.

[07/01] Wood v. Baum
In a derivative action, dismissal of the case by the Court of Chancellery is affirmed where the plaintiff failed to allege particularized facts to show that a majority of the defendants knowingly engaged in fraudulent or illegal conduct or breached in bad faith the covenant of a good faith and fair dealing.

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.


Firm Overview | Attorneys | Practice Areas | Our Clients | Representative Cases | Referrals | Resources | Contact

© 2008 Gilman, McLaughlin & Hanrahan, LLP. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer