An interesting case arose several years ago in Connecticut whereby the plaintiff alleged that they lost the city’s business because the defendants — the city of New London and its former city manager — intended to retaliate against the plaintiff for having filed a lawsuit complaining about police practices in New London.

In Tennessee, a  plaintiff entered into a contract with an alarm company to provide alarm monitoring services for their apartment.

A recent decision in New Jersey dealt with a liquidated damage clause and a limitation of liability provision in the subscriber contract. The plaintiff was the owner of a retail store and purchased an alarm system from the defendant alarm company.

In a recent case in Texas, a jury convicted a defendant under the Texas deceptive business practices statute. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court.

A case arose in Oregon which involved the attempt by the plaintiff insurance company to extend coverage of the alarm company to an entire building where its contract was for a particular suite.

The question arose whether a victim can incur the economic loss of installing a security system as a direct result of the defendant’s conduct. The defendant was convicted of first degree burglary and the trial court included the cost of certain home security improvements made by the victim in the order of restitution.

A very interesting case arose before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. A defendant police officer, while driving through a neighborhood where there had been a rash of daytime burglaries, noted an individual standing on the sidewalk in front of a residence.

Trademark ownership provides important commercial and legal benefits, including the exclusive right to use the registered trademark and the right to sell or license it to another for profit. Further, trademark ownership gives one legal standing to prevent others from using or attempting to register similar or identical trademarks.