Jump to Navigation

Can We Help You?

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

News

Case Summaries

Injury & Tort Law

[05/17] Abraham v. St. Croix Renaissance Group
The district court's order remanding a civil action to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands is affirmed, where: 1) there is no error in the district court's conclusion that the "continuous release" of hazardous substances from defendant's premises constituted "an event or occurrence" for purposes of the mass-action exclusion, that happened in the Virgin Islands and that resulted in injuries in the Virgin Islands; and thus, 2) the civil action here is not a removable "mass action" under the Class Action Fairness Act.

[05/16] Forrester Environmental v. Wheelabrator Technologies
Summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's state law business tort claims is vacated and remanded, where the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims because: 1) defendant's allegedly inaccurate statements regarding its patent rights concerned conduct taking place entirely in Taiwan; 2) the use of a patented process outside the United States is not an act of patent infringement; and thus, 3) there is no prospect of a future U.S. infringement suit arising out of the Taiwan company's use of the parties' products in Taiwan, and accordingly no prospect of inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts.

[05/16] US v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Company
In action by parties to apportion monetary liability for damages caused when a tanker stuck an abandoned ship resulting in an oil spill, judgment that the port owner was not liable is reversed, where: 1) the tanker, and its owner, were implied beneficiaries of the port owner's safe berth warranty; 2) the safe berth warranty is an express assurance of safety, and that the named port exception to that warranty does not apply to hazards that are unknown to the parties and not reasonably foreseeable; 3) it is unclear if this warranty was actually breached, as the district court made no finding as to the tanker's actual draft nor the amount of clearance actually provided; 4) if the district court finds the contractual warranty issue is satisfied, then the district court needs to resolve the appropriate standard of care required, whether the port owner breached that standard, and if so, whether any such breach caused the accident; but 5) there was no error with the district court's holding that the port owner's alleged misrepresentation as to the depth of its berth was geographically irrelevant to the ultimate accident; and 6) the government has waived reliance on a partial settlement agreement with the port owner that, the government contends, precludes the port owner from making certain equitable defenses to the government's subrogation claims.

[05/16] Greene v. Bank of America
Judgment for defendant on plaintiff's claim of malicious prosecution entered after defendant's special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute was granted, is reversed, where plaintiff can demonstrate a prima facie case for malicious prosecution.

Read 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.

Notable Cases

$12 Million - Settlement for Minority Shareholder in Breach of Contract Case. The firm successfully represented a minority shareholder in a large privately held corporation. The Chief Executive Officer of the corporation agreed to repurchase the shares and then breached that agreement. The firm obtained over $12 million for the minority shareholder.  Read More

$5.5 million - Medical Malpractice Verdict Wert v. Weiser, et al., No. 99VS15524D. The firm successfully represented the Plaintiffs...  Read More

$4,500,000.00 - Judgment. Fried & Bonder obtained a 4.5 million dollar judgment on behalf of its client who was injured while a passenger in a company owned truck. Because he was not an employee of the company, the Defendant argued...  Read More

See All Notable Cases

Read Our Blog

Articles

Office Location

Fried & Bonder, LLC
White Provision, Suite 305
1170 Howell Mill Road, NW

Atlanta, GA 30318

Phone: 404-963-9443
Toll Free: 866-439-2018
Fax: 404-995-8899
Atlanta Law Office Map

The attorneys of Fried & Bonder, LLC, in Atlanta, Georgia, represent clients nationwide and statewide in Georgia, including Cherokee, Clarke, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, and Rockdale counties, and cities such as Alpharetta, Athens, Buckhead, Cartersville, Conyers, Covington, Cumming, Dalton, Decatur, Douglasville, Fayetteville, Forsyth, Griffin, Jasper, Jonesboro, Lawrenceville, Marietta, McDonough, Milton, Riverdale, Rome, Roswell, and Stockbridge.

Privacy Policy | Legal Marketing® by FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business.