Court Rulings

Construction Performance Surety Bonds—Conditions Precedent—Balance of the Contract Price—Attorney Fees. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. (Whiting-Turner) was the general contractor for an office building construction project (the Project). Whiting-Turner entered into an agreement with Klempco Construction (Klempco) for Klempco's construction of an anchor system at the Project's underground parking garage (the Subcontract). Klempco's work included the installation of sprayed concrete (shotcrete) to support the anchoring system. The Subcontract price was $1,785,783. Whiting-Turner required Klempco to furnish a performance bond and a payment bond. Klempco obtained the bonds from Guarantee Company of North America USA (GCNA). The bonds specified three conditions precedent that Whiting-Turner would have to satisfy to trigger GCNA's obligations as surety, one of which was to pay the balance of the contract price in accordance with the Subcontract to GCNA or a contractor selected to perform the Subcontract. The "balance of the contract price" was defined as the total amount payable by Whiting-Turner to Klempco under the Subcontract "after all proper adjustments have been made, . . . reduced by all valid and proper payments made to or on behalf of [Klempco] under the [Subcontract]." Klempco immediately fell behind schedule and stopped paying its sub-subcontractors, and directed Whiting-Turner to assume responsibility for the shotcrete installation and to work directly with two of its sub-subcontractors. Whiting-Turner sent Klempco and GCNA a letter declaring Klempco in default. Following a meeting between Whiting-Turner, Klempco, and GCNA, the Subcontract price was reduced by $553,707, which was the price of the shotcrete work to be performed by Whiting-Turner. Klempco then notified Whiting-Turner that it was demobilizing from the Project. Whiting-Turner requested advice from GCNA, but GCNA did not respond. Whiting-Turner terminated the Subcontract following Klempco's default

The Court certified the following question from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina: Under South Carolina law, does a drug testing laboratory that has a contract with an employer to conduct and evaluate drug tests owe a duty of care to the employees who are subject to the testing so as to give rise to a cause of action for negligence for failure to properly and accurately perform the test and report the results? The Court answers this question in the affirmative.

This is an appeal of the termination of a tenured teacher's employment pursuant to the Tenure Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 49-5-501 to – 515. The Director of Schools of the Franklin Special School District filed Charges for Dismissal of the tenured teacher on the grounds of unprofessional conduct, incompetence, inefficiency, insubordination, and neglect of duty. The charging document alleged multiple incidents of unprofessional conduct based on a lack of adherence to required procedures, particularly in the area of special education laws and procedures. It further alleged that the teacher was placed on a Corrective Action Plan for the 2014-2015 school year, during which the teacher was found to be in violation of the plan on multiple occasions. Moreover, at the end of the 2014-2015 school year, the teacher was suspended for three days without pay as a result of an incident that occurred on May 11, 2015, during which the teacher improperly restrained a special education student, which violated the student's individualized education plan. The charging document also identified, inter alia, an incident that occurred on October 28, 2015, when the teacher got into a physical altercation with a special education student who refused to return the teacher's day planner and which resulted in the two falling to the floor. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Impartial Hearing Officer recommended dismissal on the grounds of unprofessional conduct. When the school board voted to sustain the Hearing Officer's decision, the teacher sought review in chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the teacher's dismissal based on the grounds of unprofessional conduct and incompetence. This appeal followed. Because the Hearing Officer did not find that the ground of incompetence had been proven, and that decision was not appealed, the ground of incompetence was not before the court. Therefore, it may not be considered as a ground for dismissal. However, we affirm the decision to dismiss the

Dismissal of complaint motion for judgment on pleadings common-law tort for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy Greeley claim unlicensed practice of nursing R.C. 4723.03 reporting Ohio Board of Nursing retaliatory discharge R.C. 4723.341 R.C. 4113.52 jeopardy adequate statutory remedy. Trial court did not err in dismissing employee's complaint for failure to state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where jeopardy element of claim was not satisfied. Adequate statutory remedy existed under R.C. 4723.33 and 4723.341 — incorporating the rights and duties granted "whistleblowing" employees under R.C. 4113.52 — that addresses society's interest in protecting employees who report violations of R.C. Chapter 4723. Employee's failure to comply with the requirements for statutory relief for wrongful discharge did not render statutory remedy inadequate.

Appeal dismissed. Since the non-compete and non-solicitation covenants are the subject of the parties' assignments of error, and said provisions expired on May 9, 2017, any judgment of this court would not have any impact on a genuine, live controversy. As such, the parties' assignments of error are moot and this matter is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, Adam Correia, was seriously injured when a friend's High Standard Model 1911 .45-caliber handgun accidentally discharged, causing a bullet to strike Correia in the abdomen. At the time of the accident, the friends were target shooting on property owned by the defendants, John Bettencourt and Theresa Bettencourt (the Bettencourts). Correia appealed from a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure granting the Bettencourts' motion for summary judgment. This case came before the Supreme Court sitting at Woonsocket High School, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the parties' written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court and concluded that the factual circumstances before the Court did not give rise to the imposition of a duty on the defendant.

Trade secrets menus recipes confidentiality agreement agreement not to compete. Former employees did not misappropriate trade secrets by opening competing business that used similar menu items to restaurant where they had previously worked because there were significant differences in how those menu items were prepared and the menu items were common to many restaurants. Plaintiffs could not avoid summary judgment because they could not prove defendants had possession of, or used, plaintiffs' customer database.

Rule 12 motions to dismiss sovereign immunity purchase of insurance Tort Claims Act public official immunity public official versus public employee.