Richardson Callahan & Frederick LLP - Attorneys At Law

Welcome

Richardson Callahan & Frederick LLP
Attorneys At Law

4205 Balmoral Drive, Suite 101
Huntsville, Alabama 35801-4881

Telephone: (256) 533-2440
Facsimile: (256) 533-2441

MAILING ADDRESS:

Post Office Box 18667
Huntsville, Alabama 35804-8667

Richardson Callahan & Frederick LLP is a law firm of highly experienced attorneys with a distinctive civil practice. Our firm has been recognized to be among the best in the Huntsville / North Alabama area in the areas of business and commercial litigation, corporate law, employment law, franchising, government contracts, estate planning and personal injury. While Richardson Callahan & Frederick LLP is primarily a litigation and dispute resolution firm representing clients ranging from small businesses to FORTUNE 500 corporations, the firm also represents individuals in transactional matters such as real estate, and in personal concerns involving estate planning and probate litigation.

Richardson Callahan & Frederick LLP is a big firm in a small box with a history of achieving successful results for its clients. Choosing the right firm to represent you is an important one. We encourage you to learn more about who we are and what we do. Explore our web site and then call (256) 533-2440 to see how we can help you.


Legal News...

Business
[02/08] Hanmi brings in financial adviser
[02/08] Ex-Intel executive pleads guilty in NYC to fraud
[02/08] European stocks take a breather from debt fears
More...

Top Headlines
[02/08] Reports: Toyota plans to recall 300,000 Priuses
[02/08] Michael Jackson doctor charged in singer's death
[02/08] Ex-Intel executive pleads guilty in NYC to fraud
More...

Government Contracts

[02/05] Graffiti Protective Coatings, Inc. v. City of Pico Rivera
In plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate seeking to invalidate a new contract between defendant-city and its competitor and to compel city to award the contract through competitive bidding, trial court's grant of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is reversed and remanded as, even if plaintiff's claims involve a public issue, they are not based on any statement, writing, or conduct by the city in furtherance of its right of free speech or its right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Rather, plaintiff's claims are based on state and municipal laws requiring the city to award certain contracts through competitive bidding, and thus, the claims are not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute.
More...

Intellectual Property

[02/05] SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
In a patent infringement action by a French company that specializes in home-cooking appliances against a Hong Kong corporation, involving a patent which claims a deep fryer with an inexpensive plastic outer shell or skirt, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) there is no manifest of injustice in honoring a jury's finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 2) there is no prejudice to defendant in the district court's conclusion at the preliminary injunction stage that prosecution history estoppel did not apply; 3) the district court did not err in admitting plaintiff's expert testimony; 4) the jury's finding of inducement is justified, and the damage award, even if it was based on inducement alone, stands; 5) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for JMOL on discovery misconduct grounds; 6) district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a new trial to defendant based on the summation of plaintiff's counsel; and 7) there is no detectable error in district court's decision to set aside its original awards of enhanced damages and attorney's fees.
More...

Labor & Employment Law

[02/08] Johnson v. Weld County
In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action based on defendant's failure to hire plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to rebut defendant's evidence suggesting that the male candidate it hired as Fiscal Officer had superior qualifications to plaintiff's, as well as its evidence that she was not, at the time of the hiring decision, disabled within the meaning of the ADA.
More...


The following language is required pursuant to Rule 7.2, Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct: No representation is made that the quality of the legal services performed is greater than the quality of the legal services performed by other lawyers.

Copyright © 2010 by Richardson Callahan & Frederick LLP. All rights reserved. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include this copyright statement.