Court dismissed case for failure to prosecute where plaintiff had willfully or recklessly failed to actively litigate the case for several years despite repeated extensions and warnings from the court.

Title VII race discrimination claims failed where plaintiff failed to identify similarly situated co-workers of other races who committed the same type of misconduct as plaintiff but were not terminated like plaintiff.

Although court lacked statutory authority to hear appeal from administrative decision of county staff since the statute only permitted appeals of decisions by the county's governing board, landowners could challenge the legality of a minor subdivision approval through a writ of certiorari.

Motion to stay district court proceedings pending appeal of class certification denied where defendant would have an adequate remedy with continued proceedings and was unlikely to prevail in its appeal.

Court certified class of university students claiming breach of contract from shift to online instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic, where the alleged breach conferred standing, the proposed class was ascertainable from the university's records, and the common questions of breach and impossibility of performance predominated.

Public Service Commission's failure to make specific factual findings and legal conclusions when approving electric company's request to include pension and retirement benefit liabilities in the rate base precluded appellate review and required reversal of the decision.

The court affirmed an order of the Bankruptcy Court which denied debtor's request to limit certain provisions of their Chapter 11 Plan.

Handdown List released on:February 22, 2023

Fraud claims were not barred by economic loss doctrine where plaintiff had alleged fraudulent representations and concealment committed by defendants outside the scope of the parties' contractual obligations, such that the fraud allegations were distinct from allegations of non-performance.

Plaintiffs' malpractice claims were time-barred since they first knew or should have known that they had been injured by allegedly erroneous advice back in 2004, when they executed a consent judgment in a Department of Justice investigation of business practices purportedly based on that same advice. The court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.