graham construction lawsuit
(rh) (Entered: 08/12/2020), (#9) NOTICE of Direct Assignment as to Graham Construction Services, Inc. Consent/Reassignment Form due by 8/26/2020. The case status is Pending - ), Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and, I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email. The next issue of Saskatoon StarPhoenix Afternoon Headlines will soon be in your inbox. Graham Construction Password (at least 8 characters required). Graham moved for post-verdict JMOL on three of the four counterclaims raised by H & S. As relevant to this appeal, Graham argued that H & S's claim for the value of the auger was barred by Graham's affirmative defense of unclean hands. The owners reaction may start as a dispute and become a construction lawsuit. Corpus Christi Can't Duck Suit Over $50M Wastewater We also vacate the jury award of $197,238 in favor of H & S on its breach of contract claim and vacate the district court's award of $52,387 in favor of H & S for loss of the auger and remand for a new trial on damages as to those claims. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Attorney for the Plaintiff. H & S subsequently filed a motion for post-verdict JMOL under Fed.R.Civ.P. (Collins, Matthew) (Entered: 08/11/2020), Docket(#4) CONSENT/REASSIGNMENT FORM by Bluestone Construction, Inc. (rh) (Entered: 07/20/2020), Docket(#3) NOTICE of Direct Assignment as to Bluestone Construction, Inc.. Consent/Reassignment Form due by 7/31/2020. Clerk's office added link to 8 Motion to Transfer and clarified docket text. Graham's failure to raise this challenge in a Rule 50(a) motion waived the opportunity to raise it after trial. Id. The jury awarded Graham $420,194.40 in economic losses on its negligent misrepresentation claim. (rh) (Entered: 08/12/2020), DocketDOCKET CORRECTION re: #5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. of Amcord, Inc., 91 F.3d 1094, 1098 (8th Cir.1996) (applying North Dakota law). 523, 573 S.W.2d 316 (1978), for the proposition that when an owner supplies plans and specifications to a contractor, an implied warranty arises that the owner's plans and specifications are adequate and suitable for the particular project. 275, 578 S.W.2d 23 (1979), for the proposition that an essential element of prevailing on a breach-of-warranty claim involves the proof of a causal connection between the breach of warranty and the damage to the roof. With this well-established precedent in mind, we turn to the present case. 1:19-CV-00094 | 2019-06-03, U.S. District Courts | Contract | Consent/Reassignment Form due by 8/26/2020. (am) (Entered: 07/17/2020), (#2) Summons Issued as to Graham Construction Services, Inc., Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America. In Housing Authority of City of Texarkana v. E.W. Because the district court's refusal to instruct deprived the jury from considering a viable defense to H & S's breach of contract claim, the instructional error was harmful, prejudicial, and reversible. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Beelman River Terminals, Inc., 254 F.3d 706, 714 (8th Cir.2001). All rights reserved. Defendant, Graham Development & Construction Mgt Inc On cross appeal, Graham raises three claims: (1) the defense of equitable estoppel bars any recovery on H & S's breach of contract claim; (2) the district court abused its discretion by failing to instruct the jury on Graham's defenses of estoppel and mitigation; and (3) the defense of unclean hands bars H & S's recovery on its claim for the value of the auger.