An interesting case in the state of Ohio occurred when a deputy sheriff, while responding to an activated burglar alarm (alarm drop) without lights or sirens so as to not alert any intruder in the home, collided with a stopped car.

An action was filed by the plaintiff against the State Department of Environmental Management and several of its officers after the officers seized a raccoon.

The city of Chicago adopted a wage ordinance pursuant to its home rule unit authority established by the Illinois Constitution.

A city in Wyoming refused to issue a certificate of occupancy to a hotel because the owner failed to install a fire alarm system. The plaintiff, the contractor, submitted renovation building plans to the city stating that a fire sprinkler system would be installed consistent with NFPA Standard 13.

In a case decided about a year ago by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the plaintiff, a seller of rare coins, and the defendant alarm company entered into a contract to upgrade and convert the existing burglar alarm system.

The first article I wrote for SDM was in January 1980. While almost 40 years has passed since then, I recently came across the article and realized it is still as relevant today. So if you are at all considering selling your company, read on.  

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.

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.