Hon. Nathan D. Mihara (Ret.)


Hon. Nathan D. Mihara is a retired Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District. After serving over three decades as a judicial officer, including 27 years for the Court of Appeal and 8 years for the Santa Clara County Superior and Municipal Courts, Justice Mihara joined ADR Services, Inc. to resolve disputes as a mediator, arbitrator, and referee.

Justice Mihara began his legal career as a civil lawyer in private practice. He then joined the California State Attorney General’s office as a Deputy Attorney General, serving in the criminal division prosecuting appeals and writs. During this time, he handled numerous cases in the trial courts and hundreds of appeals which included two cases he successfully argued before the California Supreme Court. In 1985, Governor George Deukmejian appointed him to the Santa Clara County Municipal Court, where he served for three years before his elevation to the Superior Court in 1988.

As a Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Justice Mihara’s assignments covered civil trials and settlement conferences, law and motion, felony trials, family law, juvenile law, and probate matters. In 1993, Justice Mihara was appointed by Governor Pete Wilson to be an Associate Justice on the California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District. Over the course of his 27 years at the Court of Appeal, he has authored over 250 published opinions and reviewed thousands of civil and criminal appeals and extraordinary writ matters.

Justice Mihara is a member of the California Judges Association and served as President of the California Asian-Pacific American Judges Association from 2012-2013. He has co-chaired the Santa Clara County Bar Association’s Appellate Section and has served as part of its Law Related Education Committee and Minority Access Committee. He was a Member of the Board of Directors of the Sentencing Alternatives Program from 1985 to 2021 and President of the Board for many years.

In addition, Justice Mihara is a frequent lecturer and panelist for many judicial education programs, bar association seminars, and law schools, including Hastings College of the Law, UC Davis King Hall Law School, UC Berkeley Law, Stanford Law School, and Santa Clara Law School. He has taught on issues of access and fairness in the legal profession and ethics in judicial administration. He has also made presentations to various local schools for Constitution Day and Read Across America.

Justice Mihara received his B.A. degree in Economics from the University of Washington and his Juris Doctorate from Hastings College of the Law. He was admitted to the California bar and to practice before the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976. He became a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court in 1980.

He has been active in his community with Little League Baseball, the American Youth Soccer Association and his church. He is married and has one son.


  • Employment
  • Wage & Hour
  • Real Estate
  • Business
  • Class Action
  • Personal Injury
  • Products Liability
  • Family Law


Associate Justice, Sixth Appellate District, 1993-2020

  • Authored over 250 published opinions and reviewed thousands of civil and criminal appeals and extraordinary writ matters
  • Served on the Appellate Courts Process Task Force, the Appellate Advisory Committee and its Legislative Subcommittee

Judge of the Superior Court, 1988-1993

  • Assignments included civil trials and settlement conferences, law and motion calendars, criminal pretrials and trials, family law, and juvenile and probate matters

Judge of the Municipal Court, 1985-1988

  • Presided over misdemeanor arraignments, pretrials, trials, law and motion, and civil trials and settlement conferences


  • OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CALIFORNIA, Deputy Attorney General, 1977-1985


    J.D., 1975
    B.A. in Economics, 1972


  • Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Silicon Valley
  • California Asian-Pacific American Judges Association: Former President 2012-2013
  • California Judges Association
  • Judicial Council of California: Chair, Appellate Indigent Defense Oversight Advisory Committee
  • Santa Clara County Bar Association: Co-chair, Appellate Section; Member, Law Related Education Committee and Minority Access Committee
  • Sentencing Alternatives Program: Member of the Board of Directors since 1985; President of the Board of Directors

Representative Cases

Business and Contract

  • Plaintiff, a commercial bank, sued two individual defendants based upon their continuing guaranty of the debts and liabilities of a financially troubled business. Issues arose whether the bank owed a duty to disclose certain facts and defendants' claim of statutory exoneration.
  • Plaintiff, an industrial equipment rental company, has equipment damaged by subcontractor insured by defendant insurance companies. Question of whether plaintiff should prevail against subcontractor company but not as to defendant insurance companies on its suit based on a public works bond as to one and a contractor's license bond for the other company.
  • City/municipality sued defendant commercial business for unpaid rent. Issue was whether the City waived its right to full payment by accepting a reduction in rent from a sub-lessee.
  • Doctor filed a petition for administrative mandamus to compel an insurance provider to set aside its termination of the provider contract with him. Issues included whether the right of the doctor to practice in his field was a purely economic right or a fundamental right.
  • Plaintiff company remodeled a home for defendants. A dispute arose over the amount of payment. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract and foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. Defendants filed a cross-complaint for unfair business practices, fraud, negligence, and breach of contract. Issue was whether plaintiff should prevail on a theory of unjust enrichment.
  • Plaintiff shopping center sued defendant general store for breach of contract after it closed its market in plaintiff's shopping center notwithstanding a “stay-open” clause in the lease. Issues were whether there was a breach of the lease, amount of damages, and duty to mitigate damages.
  • Defendants' daughter died when the motor home in which she was sleeping caught fire. The motor home had been parked in the driveway of the residence of its owners who had a standard homeowner’s insurance policy containing a motor vehicle exclusion. The insurance company filed a declaratory relief action to determine whether this exclusion precluded coverage under the policy for the owners' liability for the daughter's death.
  • Plaintiff corporation brought an action against its former employees for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of confidentiality agreements and other related causes of action. Issue was whether attorney's fees were recoverable by defendants.
  • Plaintiff filed a fraud and breach of contract action against one California corporation, two out-of-state corporations and three non-resident individuals who were corporate officers of one of the out-of-state corporations. Question was whether the court had specific jurisdiction over the individuals as to the fraud cause of action.
  • Plaintiff brought a claim against defendant for breach of contract to supply materials for a project to widen a highway. Issues were whether plaintiff could base its claim on documents not specified in the complaint and whether there was evidence of a written contract between the parties.
  • Plaintiffs sued auto dealership arising out of a dispute over a lease contract between the parties. The lawsuit was based alleged violations of the Vehicle Leasing Act (VLA), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and the Song-Beverly Warranty Act (Song-Beverly). Issues concerned the evidentiary matters and attorney's fees.
  • Plaintiff attorney entered into a contingency fee agreement with defendant under which he agreed to act as defendant’s attorney in an action against a corporation. After the lawsuit settled, defendant refused to fully compensate attorney under the agreement. Attorney sued defendant for breach of the contingency fee agreement. After the fee agreement was voided for not fully complying with Business and Professions Code section 6147, the attorney sued for quantum meruit. Issue concerned the reasonable amount of attorney's fees owed.
  • Plaintiff corporation which markets bagged greens, suffered a significant loss of business in the wake of an FDA advisory. It sought to recover these losses under its insurance policy issued by defendant. After defendant denied the claim, plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against the insurance company. Issue concerned how to define "insured event" under the circumstances.
  • Plaintiff filed an action against defendant bank, and others in which she alleged improprieties in the non-judicial foreclosure process involving her residence. Issues concerned the causes of action for wrongful foreclosure, unlawful business practices, and declaratory relief.
  • Plaintiff, the owner of a historical home sued defendant film company for releasing a film about the home. Plaintiff alleged unauthorized use of its trademarks, unfair competition, and interference with contract, and economic advantage. Question was whether plaintiff's trademarks were an integral part of the public's vocabulary.
  • Plaintiff sold her medical practice to defendant. As part of this transaction, plaintiff lent defendant $75,000 and defendants A and B were guarantors on the note. After a dispute arose regarding the terms of the note, plaintiff sued A and B for breach of contract, declaratory relief, and reformation. Question whether the guarantors breached the guaranty agreement.
  • Plaintiffs sued their homeowner’s insurer and their insurance broker/agent for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and conversion after their home and its contents were destroyed by fire. The insurance company paid the plaintiffs the full policy limits for the dwelling and also for the contents of the dwelling. Plaintiffs claimed that their broker had assured them that their policy would cover more than the actual stated policy limits.
  • Plaintiff material supply company sued a hotel for breach of contract. Issue concerned whether the court should allow the defendant to rely on unconscionability and unreasonableness defenses to the damages provisions of the contract when those defenses were not pleaded.
  • Plaintiff used the video-sharing service operated by defendant corporation. After the corporation suspended her account, plaintiff filed a complaint for breach of contract. Issues concerned whether plaintiff was entitled to either damages or specific performance.
  • Plaintiffs causes of action for specific performance, declaratory relief, and estoppel arose out of a lease-option agreement under which they leased a hotel from defendant for a five-year term and with an option to purchase the hotel if they paid a “non-refundable option consideration” to defendant by a date certain. They paid half of the option consideration and submitted a note for the other half which they never paid. Issue was whether the option consideration was satisfied.
  • Plaintiff paid a substantial deposit for commercial units in a proposed development. The units were never built and eventually plaintiff sued the developer and others for a return of his deposit . Issues regarding the statute of limitations and conditions on the developer's obligation to repay the deposit under the guarantee.

view all

Real Estate

  • Plaintiffs sued defendants over water drainage damages to plaintiffs' property arising from defendants' lands. Issues were raised over evidence of specific soil and water conditions.
  • Mobile home owners sued their mobile home park owners. Question whether a new mobile home park rule which restricted resales to the value of the mobile home excluding the value of the space was void and unenforceable under the protection of homeowners under the Mobile Home Residency Law that prohibits the park owners from placing restrictions on the sales price.
  • During a major storm, plaintiffs’ properties were inundated with water and debris after culverts under a State highway became clogged and channeled the flow from the creeks onto their properties. Plaintiffs filed action for inverse condemnation against the State. Question was whether there was undisputed evidence that established the State’s liability and whether strict liability applied.
  • Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against his tenant. Plaintiff asserted that defendant was a tenant at will. Issue was whether the tenant was a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees and costs under the lease provisions.
  • Plaintiff was high bidder in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale pursuant to a deed of trust. Bank lender allowed the prior homeowners to make an untimely reinstatement payment. Plaintiff sued for breach of contract. Issue was whether the foreclosure sale void.
  • Husband and wife dismissed plaintiff general contractor from their home remodel project. Contractor sued for breach of contract and foreclosure on a mechanic's lien. Issues: breach of contract for failure to maintain workers' compensation insurance for employees, quality of work, timeliness of completion, and unjust enrichment.
  • After plaintiff remodeled a home for defendants a dispute arose over the amount of payment. The parties’ agreement was not in writing as required by Business and Professions Code section 7159. Plaintiff brought an action in which he alleged various causes of action and sought recovery in quantum meruit. Defendants filed a cross-complaint for recovery of possession of personal property, damages, and breach of contract.
  • Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of a commercial lease. Issues concerned the interpretation of the lease, whether defendant was entitled to rescind the lease for unilateral mistake or material misrepresentation, and whether the lease violated zoning requirements.
  • County sued a non-profit business for violation of building codes and zoning ordinance. Defendant business had begun to develop and use its property to conduct religious services in violation of those codes and ordinance. Issue was whether there was an existence of a public nuisance.
  • Defendant attempted to exercise its options to purchase three buildings that it leased from plaintiff . Plaintiff who had previously claimed that the options were invalid, claimed that defendant’s letters attempting to exercise the options were invalid attempts because defendant asserted in the letters that it was not required to pay rent between the exercise and close of escrow. Plaintiff sued defendant alleging that the options were invalid and that the attempted exercise was invalid.
  • Plaintiffs as individuals sued defendants in connection with a real estate joint venture. Plaintiffs alleged numerous causes of action, including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence. Issues concerned whether damages were speculative and attorney's fees.
  • Plaintiff sued owners of adjacent property over an easement dispute. At issue was how to interpret a recorded deed burdening her property with a view easement for the benefit of the adjacent property owned by defendants and whether to admit extrinsic evidence to aid in interpreting the language of the easement.
  • Plaintiff sued defendant neighbor in an action regarding an access easement through defendant's property. Issues were whether there was an express deeded easement through defendant's property and whether a prior settlement agreement barring "obstructions" to the easement precluded a gate defendant had erected across the easement.
  • Plaintiffs obtained two loans to purchase their home. After they were unable to repay the loans, they filed an action against multiple defendants including individuals and financial institutions for alleged predatory lending practices. Their amended complaint alleged conspiracy to commit fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; unfair business practices; breach of title insurance contract; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Issues concerned the elements of conspiracy.
  • Plaintiffs obtained two loans to purchase a house. After they were unable to repay these loans, they filed an action against multiple defendants for alleged predatory lending practices. They alleged that defendant, an appraiser, participated in a conspiracy with the other named defendants by falsely inflating the value of their house.
  • Dispute over the sale of real property caused plaintiff to file a lawsuit against three defendants asserting equitable claims of specific performance and quiet title. Issues concern whether plaintiff could recover damages for breach of contract and for intentional interference with economic advantage. Other issues covered unjust enrichment and damages.
  • Plaintiff filed an action against financial institution defendants alleging improprieties in the execution of her mortgage, subsequent assignments, and the nonjudicial foreclosure process involving a residence co-owned with her husband. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages.
  • Plaintiff sued landlord for breach of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, breach of duty of care, landlord retaliation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Issue concerned the imposing of terminating sanctions.
  • Plaintiff purchased of a home which she discovered had problems with the floors, windows, and ventilation. She sued the owners of the complex, the builders, and others. Issues were regarding her causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of fitness for a particular purpose, and negligence.

view all


  • Plaintiff sued her employer and three corporate individuals (CEO and board members) for wrongful termination, breach of contract, fraud based on misrepresentations, and tortious interference with a contract. Issues were whether there was a constructive discharge due to intolerable working conditions, denial of meaningful opportunity to do the job, and forced resignation.
  • Plaintiff mechanic, sued his employer after being terminated for a positive drug test. Question raised was whether the employer breached covenant of good faith and fair dealing by refusing to provide a retest of his urine sample or by failing to consider plaintiff's explanation of the test results.
  • Before a corporate merger was approved, plaintiff's employment with one of the corporations was terminated. Plaintiff tried unsuccessfully to exercise some of the unvested stock options and sued the corporation for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, interference with contract, etc.. Issue was whether an acceleration provision that would allow some of his unvested stock to vest.
  • Plaintiff company sued its former employee after she left the company’s employ and independently contracted to provide services to the company's client that she had previously provided services to on behalf of the company. Company alleged breach of the duty of loyalty, interference with contract and fraud and sought a constructive trust. The former employee cross-complained for declaratory relief invalidating a noncompetition clause and damages for unfair competition.
  • Plaintiff sued her former employers and former supervisors for defamation and for creating a sexually hostile work environment by acts of gender discrimination and sexual harassment.
  • Plaintiff after receiving a demotion, sued his employer for age discrimination under the Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA). (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.) Issues were whether the employer's reasons for demotion were untrue or pretextual, or whether the employer acted with discriminatory motive.
  • Plaintiff sued her former employer/company and its then-parent company for retaliation for her complaints to management and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). Issues concerned admissibility of lay opinion regarding the quality of her writing, admission of co-worker letters, and damages instructions.
  • Plaintiff sued defendant/computer company for employment discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.). Issue was whether FEHA requires an employer to engage in an interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability when the employer has already decided to discharge the employee for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason.
  • Plaintiff claimed discrimination and verbal harassment based on a perceived disability in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900, et seq. Issues concerned expert witness fees and attorney's fees.
  • School employee and her labor union filed a mandate petition where they argued that a classified employee of a non-merit-system school district who attains permanent status and then is laid off from her position and thereafter reemployed by the district in a different, lower position retains her permanent status and may not be required to serve a probationary period in the new position. Issue was whether the statutory scheme supports that contention or whether such an employee’s permanent status is restricted to the position or class in which it was attained and is not retained when the employee is reemployed in a different, lower position.
  • Two employees sought a writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085) to compel their former employer to reinstate them as executive assistants to the employer's president or alternatively, to conduct hearings on the propriety of their “demotions, involuntary transfers, and terminations.” Issue was whether their temporary reassignments were "demotions" and whether their eventual separations from employment were terminations "for cause," under the xxx Code.
  • After her employment was terminated, plaintiff sued brought an action against defendants for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Gov. Code, § 12940) (FEHA), wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, breach of employment agreement, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Issues included age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
  • Plaintiff was terminated from employment by a corporation. He brought an action for retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), retaliation in violation of public policy, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failure to investigate, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unfair competition.
  • Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages alleging sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, sexual battery, failure to prevent harassment, and negligent supervision and retention. She later added a claim that she was forced to resign in retaliation for her lawsuit. Question was whether defendant waived its right to arbitration and whether there was an enforceable arbitration agreement.
  • Plaintiff brought a wrongful termination action against defendant corporation based on allegations of racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Issue was whether the corporation was estopped from presenting evidence of its nondiscriminatory, good faith personnel actions.

view all

Wage and Hour

  • Two employees were reinstated to their employment with the Department of Corrections by the State Personnel Board (the Board) after they successfully challenged their dismissals. The Board awarded them backpay and benefits including merit salary adjustments (MSAs) and physical fitness incentive pay (PFIP), and offset that award with the amount of money they had earned from other employers, not including overtime pay, during the four-year period between their dismissals and their reinstatements. The Board also ruled that one of them should be compensated at salary range “K,” which he had not yet qualified for at the time of his dismissal. Issues concerned whether the offset should have included overtime pay and the use of the "K" salary range.
  • Plaintiffs brought a wage and hours action brought against defendant company and its principals. Issues included: whether the company complied with state minimum wage and overtime requirements; (2) was there a failure to provide rest breaks; (3) was the company liable for restitution or for penalties; and (4) was there a cause of action for a civil rights violation?

Class Action

  • Plaintiff on behalf of himself and others similarly situated filed a complaint for damages and injunctive relief alleging that defendant equipment rental company violated the Consumer's Remedies Act by making false/misleading statements regarding reservations. Plaintiffs alleged that the company accepted reservations for rentals with a non-refundable fee without disclosing their no guarantee of availability condition.
  • A group of governmental entities acting for themselves, as class representatives and on behalf of the People of the State of California filed a class action against a group of lead manufacturers alleging that the manufacturers were liable for damages caused by lead paint on theories of strict product liability, negligence and fraud, should be required to abate the public nuisance created by lead paint and should be enjoined and ordered to pay restitution, disgorge profits and pay civil penalties due to their unfair business practices regarding lead paint. Issue whether the public nuisance and fraud causes of action should proceed.
  • Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification of his action against defendant corporation that alleged the corporation improperly transferred his corporate stock to the State of California under California’s Unclaimed Property Law (Code Civ. Proc., § 1300, et seq.). Issue was whether the primary issues in the case involved “highly individualized inquiries.”

Personal Injury/Tort Cases

  • Plaintiff injured in car accident sued defendant driver for damages. Issues concerned liability insurance and issuance of a traffic citation.
  • Plaintiff sued four attorney defendants for professional negligence/legal malpractice, breach of contract, common counts, and fraud. Issue raised concerned whether there was continuing representation by the attorneys.
  • Plaintiff, a member of a fitness club, was physically injured by a workout machine. He sued the club for negligence and strict liability. Issues were whether the negligence cause of action is precluded by a purported release plaintiff signed when he joined the club and whether the strict liability cause of action is viable if the club is a "service provider."
  • Plaintiffs sued their attorney for professional negligence based the attorney's advice to repossess the leased premises using self-help and a show of force. The attorney sued plaintiffs for legal fees.
  • Plaintiffs injured by defendant's truck driven by defendant's nephew without his permission sued both for negligence. Issue concerns whether there was a lack of duty or special circumstances that created a duty.
  • Plaintiff was injured after he fell over a cliff while playing a sports game in another country while on a tour from a sea vessel. Plaintiff sued the tour company and its owners for maritime negligence, negligence, and breach of contract of carriage.
  • Plaintiff was injured when the car he was driving collided with another car in the City. The traffic lights were not operating due to a power failure. Plaintiff sued the City, and other defendants, alleging that it created a dangerous condition at the collision site.
  • Plaintiff a former student sued a school district and the teacher who sexually harassed her. After student and teacher entered into stipulated judgment in her favor, she sued the district for indemnity and declaratory relief. Issue was whether her harassment occurred within the scope of the teacher's employment.
  • Plaintiffs fell from rocks along city's coastal path/walkway, were injured and sued the city. Issue concerned whether the city was entitled to a 'design immunity' defense.
  • Plaintiff was injured when she fell down the steps leading to the backyard of a rental property owned by defendant. She brought a negligence and premises liability action for damages.
  • Plaintiff was seriously injured during a fight that occurred at a bar operated by defendant . Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against defendant, alleging a cause of action for premises liability. Issue concerned whether defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care to protect him from violent actions of third parties while he was a bar customer.
  • Plaintiff brought a negligence action against an individual relating to a vehicle collision. The issue concerned the admissibility of a videotaped deposition of defendant’s expert and plaintiff's request to present a rebuttal expert.
  • Plaintiffs husband and wife brought an action against defendant/physician for medical negligence. Issues concerned whether the injured plaintiff gave her informed consent prior to surgery.
  • Plaintiff was severely injured when she fell from a horse owned by defendants. She sued the defendants for negligence and strict liability. Issues included vicarious liability, agency, and whether the horse had dangerous propensities.
  • Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against defendant medical physician. Issues concerned the admissibility of plaintiff's expert's opinion regarding future surgery and medical treatment.
  • Plaintiff was severely injured at a construction site. He sued for negligence, premises liability and negligence per se against five defendants. Issues concerned whether two of the defendants actually breached their duties to him and whether one defendant owed an equitable contribution to two other defendants.
  • Plaintiff suffered personal injuries and property damage in a motorcycle accident with an underinsured driver. His insurance carrier denied his claim for underinsured motorist coverage. Plaintiff brought a coverage lawsuit against his insurance carrier asserting various causes of action including breach of contract, bad faith, and fraud. Sanchez appeals from the judgment. One issue concerns whether the insurance carrier promised maximum coverage and failed to provide it.
  • Plaintiffs, seven students at a medical educational institute, brought an action against defendant institute and an individual for various misrepresentations relating to plaintiffs’ employment prospects and their ability to take licensing examinations following their graduation from the institute. Issues concerned the amount of economic and noneconomic damages, punitive damages under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and alter ego theory
  • Defendant was driving his vehicle for his employer, defendant corporation, when his vehicle hit the rear of plaintiff's vehicle. Defendants conceded that they were responsible for the collision, but disputed the cause of plaintiff’s injuries and the amount of his damages. Issues included the admissibility of expert testimony by a biomechanical engineer and any award for future medical costs.
  • Plaintiff, a minor, was sexually abused by former sports coach. Plaintiff filed an action for negligence and willful misconduct against defendants sports league, programs, and association. At issue was whether the defendants had duty to protect plaintiff from criminal conduct by a third party and a duty to conduct criminal background checks of all adults who would have contact with children involved in their programs.
  • Plaintiff was struck and severely injured while she was crossing the driveway leading to a shopping center. Plaintiff sued the City, the driver of the truck, and others. She alleged that the City’s property was in a dangerous condition. Questions whether the court should give a special “design of driveway” jury instruction requested by the City, or a jury instructions on negligence per se and mandatory duty.
  • Plaintiff was injured while using a sporting apparatus. He brought an action for negligence against the sport company providing the experience, the owner of the company, and the instructor for injuries sustained in the crash. Issues concerned whether there was an express and primary assumption of risk.
  • Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against defendant medical doctor based on his care and treatment of her deceased father. Main issue concerned causation.
  • Plaintiffs, a minor and minor's parent, sued a school district for negligence in connection with a private part touching of the minor by a young classmate. Issues concerned whether a mandatory reporting obligation was triggered, admissibility of videotaped deposition testimony, and use of expert witnesses.
  • Plaintiff corporation filed an action for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment against an attorney and his law practice. Issue is whether the attorney owed a duty because he had never consented to represent plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit. Another question was whether there was an implied-in-fact attorney-client relationship between plaintiff and the defendant attorney.

view all