<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawyers USA Online &#187; breach of contract</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/tag/breach-of-contract/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 20:05:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>ERISA doesn’t completely preempt suit over pension rights&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/15/erisa-doesnt-completely-preempt-suit-over-pension-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/15/erisa-doesnt-completely-preempt-suit-over-pension-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 17:14:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supplemental executive retirement plan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92770</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A tortious interference suit over contractual obligations arising under a pension plan was not completely preempted by ERISA, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing a dismissal.</p> <p>The plaintiffs are the former executives of an automotive supply company in Michigan. Collectively, the plaintiffs were guaranteed $13 <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/15/erisa-doesnt-completely-preempt-suit-over-pension-rights/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/05/15/erisa-doesnt-completely-preempt-suit-over-pension-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Homeowners can’t sue over denial of HAMP application&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/24/homeowners-cant-sue-over-denial-of-hamp-application/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/24/homeowners-cant-sue-over-denial-of-hamp-application/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:08:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HAMP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Home Affordable Modification Program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mortgage modification]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Homeowners could not pursue state-law claims for the alleged wrongful denial of a mortgage modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming a dismissal.</p> <p>Congress authorized the U.S. Department of the Treasury to implement HAMP to help struggling <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/24/homeowners-cant-sue-over-denial-of-hamp-application/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/24/homeowners-cant-sue-over-denial-of-hamp-application/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court-appointed expert isn’t immune from suit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/15/court-appointed-expert-isnt-immune-from-suit/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/15/court-appointed-expert-isnt-immune-from-suit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert witnesses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professional liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92353</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A court-appointed expert was not immune from liability for allegedly failing to provide contracted-for services in a divorce case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a dismissal.</p> <p>The plaintiff was a party to a divorce in which child custody was disputed. The trial judge appointed the defendant to <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/15/court-appointed-expert-isnt-immune-from-suit/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/15/court-appointed-expert-isnt-immune-from-suit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>N.Y. high court sets real property damage standard&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/03/26/n-y-high-court-sets-real-property-damage-standard/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/03/26/n-y-high-court-sets-real-property-damage-standard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:37:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92082</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A seller suing for a buyer’s breach of a contract to sell real property was entitled to recover the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property at the time of the breach, New York’s highest court has ruled.</p> <p>In 2005, the defendant entered into <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/03/26/n-y-high-court-sets-real-property-damage-standard/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/03/26/n-y-high-court-sets-real-property-damage-standard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Suit alleges D.C. firm failed to protect inventor’s secrets&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/18/suit-alleges-d-c-firm-failed-to-protect-inventors-secrets/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/18/suit-alleges-d-c-firm-failed-to-protect-inventors-secrets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Your Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of fiduciary duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McDermott Will & Emery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A recently filed malpractice suit seeks to hold the D.C. law firm of McDermott, Will &#38; Emery liable for the alleged theft of a California inventor’s confidential information.</p> <p>Elizabeth Holmes and her medical technology company, Theranos, Inc., sued McDermott last month in D.C. Superior Court. The Palo Alto, Calif., inventor <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/18/suit-alleges-d-c-firm-failed-to-protect-inventors-secrets/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/18/suit-alleges-d-c-firm-failed-to-protect-inventors-secrets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>O’Quinn firm faces suit over expenses&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/07/oquinn-firm-faces-suit-over-expenses/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/07/oquinn-firm-faces-suit-over-expenses/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Correy Stephenson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Your Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of fiduciary duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deceptive trade practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mass tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[referral fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[silicosis litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90393</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2012/09/money-lmm.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-87747" title="money-lmm" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2012/09/money-lmm.jpg" alt="" width="280" height="184" /></a>According to a lawsuit filed by former clients, the Texas-based O’Quinn law firm mishandled their silicosis litigation settlement funds.</p> <p>Thirty-one former clients joined in a federal lawsuit against the estate of founding partner John O’Quinn, who passed away in 2009, <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/07/oquinn-firm-faces-suit-over-expenses/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/07/oquinn-firm-faces-suit-over-expenses/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Market crash inadmissible to refute ‘lost profits’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/12/market-crash-inadmissible-to-refute-lost-profits/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/12/market-crash-inadmissible-to-refute-lost-profits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lost profits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=89870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Defendants in a real estate development dispute could not introduce evidence of a post-breach crash in the real estate market to prove that the plaintiffs would not have profited from the parties’ contract, Maryland’s highest court has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The defendants are the owners of two adjoining properties. <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/12/market-crash-inadmissible-to-refute-lost-profits/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/12/market-crash-inadmissible-to-refute-lost-profits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Lost profits’ expert excluded in breach-of-contract case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/06/lost-profits-expert-excluded-in-breach-of-contract-case/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/06/lost-profits-expert-excluded-in-breach-of-contract-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:32:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lost profits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=89755</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An expert could not testify that a plaintiff would have been “extraordinarily successful” had the defendant not breached the parties’ contract in support of a claim for over $1 billion in “lost profits” damages, the California Supreme Court has ruled.</p> <p>The plaintiff is a small dental implant company. In 1996, <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/06/lost-profits-expert-excluded-in-breach-of-contract-case/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/06/lost-profits-expert-excluded-in-breach-of-contract-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benchmarks: Gambling contract may be enforceable&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/08/benchmarks-gambling-contract-may-be-enforceable/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/08/benchmarks-gambling-contract-may-be-enforceable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2012 15:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gambling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=89041</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Anyone who has gone to law school probably has some dim memory of being told that gambling contracts are generally unenforceable on public policy grounds.</p> <p>But Tuesday a California court decided that a professional poker player just might have enforceable rights under an alleged oral agreement to stake another gambler.</p> <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/08/benchmarks-gambling-contract-may-be-enforceable/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/08/benchmarks-gambling-contract-may-be-enforceable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insurer doesn’t owe duty of good faith to foster child&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/22/insurer-doesnt-owe-duty-of-good-faith-to-foster-child/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/22/insurer-doesnt-owe-duty-of-good-faith-to-foster-child/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:59:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful death]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=88667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An insurance company that provided foster care liability insurance did not owe a duty of good faith to a foster child who died from neglect, the 10th Circuit has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The defendant provided foster care liability coverage to a foster parent whose foster child died of neglect. <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/22/insurer-doesnt-owe-duty-of-good-faith-to-foster-child/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/22/insurer-doesnt-owe-duty-of-good-faith-to-foster-child/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
