In this two-part series, Les Gold expertly breaks down a major case for the fire alarm industry involving the Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District. Part one, in the November issue, analyzed the illegal actions of the district and subsequent injunctions while part two breaks down the resulting modified permanent injunction

In this two-part series, Les Gold expertly breaks down a major case for the fire alarm industry involving the Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District.

 In a case decided this past year in the state of Massachusetts, a court ruled a city ordinance that restricted approved fire signaling devices and systems conflicted with the state law. 

Every so often, in a lawsuit, not only does the judge render an opinion, but the judge will explain the rationale for his decision, which is the reason why the following case is reviewed in this month’s column. 

In a recent case in the state of Florida, a group of investors alleged they were victims of a Ponzi scheme and filed an action against a company and its directors.

In a recent case in Connecticut, the issue was raised about when a statute of limitations begins to run. In that case, the defendant alarm company applied for and received credit from the plaintiff, a distributor of fire and home security equipment. 

A very comprehensive case was decided by the United States District Court for the Central District of California involving the liability of an alarm company.