THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Contracts -- Real property sale -- Right of first refusal -- Enforceability -- Consideration -- Trial court erred by finding that addendum to purchase contract granting plaintiff the right of first refusal to purchase an adjacent parcel of property was unenforceable based on a lack of separate or additional consideration -- Law does not necessarily require that consideration for right of first refusal be separately allocated -- Because the addendum was part of the sale and purchase contract, the amount plaintiff paid could be consideration covering both the purchase of plaintiff's parcel and the right of first refusal to purchase the adjacent parcel -- Conclusion that consideration paid was for both the purchase of plaintiff's parcel and right of first refusal is further supported by fact that notice of right to first refusal recorded in public records stated that it was granted for “valuable consideration offered and accepted”
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Torts -- Funeral homes -- Interference with dead body -- Negligent infliction of emotional distress -- Action against funeral home which, acting pursuant to an agreement with hospital and at hospital's express request and without notice to next of kin, transported decedent's body from hospital morgue to funeral home's refrigeration unit when morgue ran out of space, and stored body in its refrigeration unit until body was claimed -- Noneconomic damages -- Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on claims seeking to recover non-economic damages for emotional distress stemming from defendant's mishandling of decedent's body after concluding that plaintiffs failed to establish that defendant engaged in wanton, malicious, or outrageous conduct -- Economic damages -- Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant on claim for economic damages for tortious interference with dead body after finding that impact rule barred claim -- Impact rule does not bar claims for economic damages resulting from tortious interference with dead body -- As to defendant's argument that summary judgment should be affirmed based on Tipsy Coachman Doctrine because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact on issue of whether defendant violated Act, trial court never evaluated this issue or made findings in this regard -- Issue remanded for trial court to determine whether there is genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to warrant jury trial regarding whether defendant violated sections 497.152(8)(c) and 497.386(2) of Funeral Act
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Trusts -- Contracts -- Construction -- Breach of warranty -- Standing -- Action filed by previous owners of real property alleging breach of warranty based on defects in flooring installed by defendant contractor -- Trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant based on determination that plaintiffs lacked standing because they had transferred ownership of property to a revocable trust and were not the owners at time of lawsuit's inception -- As trustees of the revocable trust, plaintiffs retained a beneficial interest in the property sufficient to establish standing -- Plaintiffs were permitted to bring action in their own names and were not required to specifically allege that they were suing in their capacity as trustees -- Plaintiffs were not obligated to present evidence proving their beneficial interest in the property because defendant's evidence did not meet its summary judgment burden and, therefore, burden never shifted to the plaintiffs
VIEW OPINION (login required)

Criminal Law Headnotes (Jump to Civil Law Headnotes)

THESE ARE NOT ALL OF THE CASES RELEASED BY THE COURTS FOR THE WEEK.
To see others not presented here, log in for more comprehensive weekly listings.

Criminal law -- Possession of firearm by convicted felon -- Felon status -- Stipulation -- Trial court did not fundamentally err by accepting defendant's signed stipulation regarding his convicted felon status without conducting on-the-record colloquy with defendant where record contains defendant's personally acknowledged signed stipulation -- Defendant cannot raise error with the contents of a document jointly presented below when he had the opportunity to either change document's language or refrain from signing document -- Fact that defendant signed stipulation that he was a convicted felon shows that defendant was aware of the stipulation and its contents
VIEW OPINION (login required)