The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss because: (1) plaintiffs' tort claims based on an aircraft crash were barred by the economic loss doctrine, (2) plaintiffs failed to allege their fraud claims with particularity, and (3) the statute of limitations barred the breach of warranty claim.

Determining Whether Res Judicata Has Been Triggered Requires Review of Entire Set of Facts Giving Rise to Enforceable Claim

Railroad Employee's FELA Action Against Employer Following Collision Not Precluded by Federal Grade Crossing Regulations

Court Did Not Err in Reducing Amount, Interest Rate to Secure Vessel's Release From Arrest

The trial court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for protective order in their legal malpractice action in which defendants requested production of a non-party attorney's litigation files and correspondences with plaintiff, as there was no evidence of an implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege with regard to the third-party attorney.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that hospital defendants were immune from plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty and fraud claims and the denial of plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record on appeal.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to dismiss, or alternatively, to bar certain evidence as a sanction for spoliation of evidence, as the record supported the trial court's conclusion that litigation was not reasonably foreseeable when plaintiff destroyed the evidence.

In a high-profile murder case, the Supreme Court vacated a gag order that restrained certain classes of persons from making extrajudicial, public statements on certain subjects related to the case for so long as it remained pending, holding that the record did not reveal circumstances sufficiently exceptional to warrant such a restraint.