X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
JURY SAYS CREMATION NOT INTERFERED WITH HOUSTON — A Houston jury declined to award damages to a Hindu widower who sought a total of $24 million from his deceased wife’s cousin and an insurer for allegedly interfering with his right to cremate his wife’s body within the time that he contends is required by their religion. After a weeklong trial in the 281st District Court, the jury found that defendants Harina Kapoor, the deceased woman’s cousin, and Farmers New Life World Insurance Co. did not unlawfully interfere with Parvin Gidvani’s rights with regard to his wife’s interment and that Kapoor did not intentionally inflict severe emotional distress on Gidvani. “This has got to be the only case like this to ever be filed [in Texas],” says Ileana Blanco, a partner in Bracewell & Patterson in Houston and the lead attorney for Farmers in Gidvani v. Farmers New World Life Insurance Co., et al. Blanco says Gidvani is based on old Texas case law. In 1936, the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont held in Love v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. that “any interference with the right of possession of the body of a deceased by mutilation or otherwise disturbing the body without the consent of the next of kin is an actionable wrong for which a claim for damages may be maintained.” The Texas Supreme Court affirmed Love in 1938. — Texas Lawyer LAWYER EXCUSED FOR BREAKING 1-HOUR RULE PHILADELPHIA — A secretary out sick is a plausible excuse for why a Philadelphia attorney failed to appear in court on one hour’s notice, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has ruled. According to the three-judge panel’s unpublished memorandum opinion in Thompson v. Houston, the denial of lawyer Brandon Johnson’s post-trial motions concerning his failure to appear in Philadelphia Common Pleas court on Nov. 19, 2002, should be reversed, and his client, Carolann Houston, should be given her day in court. The opinion also noted the difficulties in complying with Philadelphia’s one-hour notice rule, which requires litigants in appeals of arbitrations to be on-call for a one-month period and come to court within an hour of being telephoned. “After careful review of counsel’s excuse in light of the existing circumstances,” the opinion stated, “including the potential impracticalities associated with adhering to a requirement to appear in court for trial on one-hour’s notice, we conclude that the order denying relief must be reversed.” — The Legal Intelligencer

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.