View in Browser

Volume IX, Issue 11

March 19, 2026

 

Cin Dale 3 v. Peoples Bank Corp., Case No. 25-1454 (4th Cir. 2026).

A bank that, pursuant to West Virginia’s suggestion and execution statutes, debits jointly titled accounts in the names of a judgment debtor and partnerships and remits the funds to a judgment creditor does not commit conversion and does not act wrongfully because it lawfully exercises ministerial dominion authorized by statute.

 

Cambric v. City of Corpus Christi, Case No. 25-40126 (5th Cir. 2026).

A plaintiff alleging a “class-of-one” equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a municipality for selective building-code enforcement fails to state a claim under Monell where she pleads only a single comparator property and thus does not allege a sufficiently widespread pattern or custom constituting an official municipal policy.

 

Griffith Foods International Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Case Nos. 24-1217 & 24-1223 (7th Cir. 2026).

A standard-form commercial general liability policy’s pollution exclusion bars coverage and any duty to defend where claims arise from long-term ethylene-oxide emissions that constitute “traditional environmental pollution,” and the applicability of the exclusion does not turn on whether permits or regulations authorized the emissions.

 

Just Funky, LLC v. Think 3 Fold, LLC, Case No. 25-1868 (8th Cir. 2026).

Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-22-308 permits a prevailing defendant to recover reasonable attorney’s fees incurred both in successfully defending a breach-of-contract claim on a “no contract” theory and in prosecuting its own contract counterclaim. A district court acts within its discretion in considering a fee motion filed after interlocutory contract rulings but before final judgment on all claims.

 

Beazer v. Richmond County Constructors, LLC, Case No. 24-11734 (11th Cir. 2026).

Equitable tolling of Title VII’s ninety-day filing period applies when a pro se plaintiff diligently attempts to secure counsel, and, being unable to do so, then timely mails his pro se complaint by guaranteed overnight delivery but misses the statutory filing deadline due to a confluence of prior counsel’s delay and hurricane-related delivery delays.

 

For more information, please visit taftlaw.com.

Sign up for the newsletters here.

For past issues, visit here.

Author

Manny Farach

Facebook X Instagram LinkedIn

Unsubscribe | Email Preferences | Privacy Policy

 

This email was sent to: 38185e38-ffa5-4e0f-e873-118667285ead  
 

This email was sent by:  Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

525 Okeechobee Boulevard

Suite 900

West Palm Beach, FL 33401