Holding that while a jury could decide that the officer's conduct was either reasonable or not, the plaintiff's driving was not "so menacing" that "any use of force in an attempt to stop it would be objectively reasonable as a matter of law"
Holding that certain omitted information was not material, but based on the ground that the substance of the information was adequately set forth in the prospectus, not simply because the information was not firm-specific or was publicly available
Holding that a party will be deemed fraudulently joined if, after all disputed questions of fact and all ambiguities in the controlling state law are resolved in the plaintiff's favor, the plaintiff could not possibly recover against the party whose joinder is questioned
Finding that insurer did not waive the limitation period and emphasizing that "the parties reached neither a settlement nor a compromise; indeed, the parties never even negotiated"
Finding no operational control or implied authorization when the "'company man' merely observed [the independent contractor's] employees performing the duties for which the governing contract gave them the 'sole' responsibility"