Representative Cases

Diversified Industries, Inc. v. AT&T, United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri 1984 – The firm represented Diversified Industries, Inc. in an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T. Diversified acquired a patented method to reclaim used teleph wire it purchased from AT&T and convert the wire into pure copper nuggets. AT&T decided that it would employ a similar method through a subsidiary and thereafter refused to sell used telephone wire to our client. The jury returned a verdict in favor of our client for $35,000,000. After trebling this verdict, pursuant to the antitrust statutes, the $105,000,000 civil judgment was the-then largest civil judgment in Missouri history.

Executive Board of Missouri Baptist Convention v. Windermere Baptist Conference Center, 280 S.W.3d 678 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) – The firm defended a non-profit conference center from a religious association’s claims that it owned or had the right to control the conference center. The firm successfully argued that the relationship between our client and the association was voluntary and gave rise to no enforceable rights. When the religious association appealed, the firm successfully obtained a unanimous decision from the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court’s judgment.

In a personal injury matter that was settled on a confidential basis, the firm represented a woman in her wrongful death claim against the hospital whose personnel committed medical negligence and tragically caused her husband’s death. Following surgery on the woman’s husband, the hospital’s medical staff provided the husband with two transfusions of the wrong blood type, largely due to their failure to comply with the hospital’s detailed processes specifically designed to prevent such mistakes. The firm obtained a confidential seven figure settlement for our client.

Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 600 (8th Cir. 1977) – During discovery, Diversified Industries, Inc. objected to producing documents prepared by legal counsel, claiming the documents were protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges. When the trial court overruled the objections, we filed a writ of mandamus seeking immediate appellate review for our client. The primary issue concerned whether communications between legal counsel and employees who were not part of the corporation’s “control group” were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, concluded that the existing legal test to determine whether such communications are privileged was inadequate and announced a modified test that broadened the scope of communications entitled to the protection of the attorney-client privilege.

Hot Light Brands, L.L.C. v. Harris Realty Inc., 912 N.E.2d 258 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009) – The firm represented the Krispy Kreme Doughnut franchisee in the Chicago metropolitan area, who had purchased real estate in a suburban mixed use commercial development. After building and operating its retail doughnut store for several years, the franchisee contracted to sell the real estate to a retail bank. The mixed use development owners claimed that the original real estate sale agreement and deed of trust granted them the authority to deny the proposed use of the real estate as a bank, which effectively blocked the sale. The trial court misapplied the law and ruled against our client but the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed and granted our client the relief it sought. The Court of Appeals held that the language in the sale agreement and deed of trust was ambiguous and therefore insufficient to impose an enforceable restrictive covenant over our client’s real estate.

Scullin Steel Co. v. Paccar, Inc., 708 S.W.2d 756 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986) – The firm represented a manufacturer of train car components against a purchaser who anticipatorily repudiated its contract with the firm’s client. In addition to traditional contract breach damages, the firm successfully obtained an award of damages based on our client’s loss of prospective profits, calculated using the best evidence reasonably available.

Feldbaum v. Avon Products, Inc., 741 F.2d 234, 237 (8th Cir. 1984) – Mallinckrodt, Inc. and Avon Products, Inc. announced a plan to merge and Avon’s share price fell in the days preceding the merger, depressing the buyout price. An Avon shareholder filed suit alleging misrepresentations in connection with the merger. The firm represented Mallinckrodt, Inc. and its board and obtained a dismissal of all claims by the district court, which dismissal the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed.

Waldron, et al. v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., United States District Court for New Jersey – The firm defended a national clothing retailer in a putative consumer class action lawsuit. Therein, the plaintiffs alleged that the retailer’s advertising and marketing violated New Jersey’s consumer fraud statutes. The firm filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, attacking the sufficiency of the complaint and arguing that the lawsuit failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the plaintiffs and their putative class suffered no ascertainable loss or damages. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuit.

The above case summaries and decisions are provided only as examples of the legal experience of Guilfoil Petzall & Shoemake, L.L.C. and its attorneys. This information does not represent the full range of the firm’s experience and it should not be viewed as a substitute for specific legal advice on your situation. Each of these legal matters involved a unique set of facts, and none should be viewed as suggesting or predicting any outcome in any other legal matter, regardless of similarity. Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.