Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Verdicts

By ljnstaff | Law Journal Newsletters |
December 31, 2015

'Almost Instant' Change of Domicile Thwarts Motion to Dismiss

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia recently declined to dismiss a diversity action for wrongful death brought by the estate of a man who was medically treated in Virginia, then moved to Idaho for a short time before his sudden death. Despite the fact that the man had lived in Idaho for only nine days, the court found adequate evidence that the deceased had changed his place of domicile from Virginia to Idaho prior to his death. Bagheri v. Bailey, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149859 (W. D. Va., 11/4/15).

Sean Matthew McKee went to Russell County Medical Center Emergency Department in Russell County, VA, on June 7, 2013, complaining of chest and back pain, shortness of breath, nausea, and a fever. Defendant Dwight L. Bailey, M.D., saw the patient, diagnosed him as suffering from acute bronchitis, and released him from care that same night. On June 12, McKee, along with his wife and two children, moved from Lebanon, VA, to Post Falls, ID, where Mrs. McKee's mother and brother lived. They arrived in Idaho on June 16 and moved in, temporarily, with the mother. Mr. and Mrs. McKee soon both interviewed for jobs at Qualfon (a call center), and both were offered positions, though there was some dispute during motion practice as to whether Mr. McKee had accepted the offered position. On June 25, 2013, Mr. McKee began to suffer from shortness of breath. Paramedics took him to the hospital, but he died soon after arrival. An autopsy showed that the cause of death was a pulmonary artery thromboembolism and bilateral pulmonary infarcts, which the plaintiff contends should have been diagnosed by Dr. Bailey on June 7.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.