Restaurateurs say the outcome of a New York high court fight over which Starbucks Corp. workers get tips could subject the state's massive hospitality industry to crippling liability, but plaintiffs' lawyers say bosses really see the battle as an opportunity to cut payrolls by spreading tips to more employees.
Ralphs Grocery Co. on Monday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a California Supreme Court decision allowing a labor union to picket outside one of its stores, saying the “radical” ruling will allow protesters on its private property solely because their speech is about labor.
A Texas appeals court declined Tuesday to revive a $2.5 million suit against Thompson & Knight LLP that alleged the firm helped a defunct home theater business transfer assets to a new venture and cut shareholders out of their investment in the company.
A New York state appeals court on Tuesday said Bank of New York Mellon Corp. did not breach a fiduciary duty in its handling of Basell AF SCA's leveraged buyout of Lyondell Chemical Co. that bankrupted both companies, affirming a lower court's decision.
Kolon Industries Inc. on Friday asked the Fourth Circuit to overturn a $920 million judgment, saying DuPont Co. should have been forced to individually address each trade secret it alleged Kolon had pilfered and the trial judge should have recused himself from the case and a related antitrust suit.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. told the Eleventh Circuit on Monday that the Florida Supreme Court was wrong to hold that the Engle tobacco litigation did not violate its due process rights, saying it mistakenly ruled that claims against the company could not be relitigated.
A New York state appellate court on Tuesday unanimously affirmed decisions in favor of real estate investor Rubin Schron and against Mariner Health Care Inc. and others in a nursing home purchasing dispute, saying the defendants’ new evidence was cumulative and would not have changed the outcomes.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court finding that a state administrative board's decision to eliminate a one-time pay increase for Pennsylvania's workers' compensation judges didn't violate the state or federal constitutions.
ClearPlay Inc. has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up its claims accusing Nissim Corp. of violating a licensing agreement the companies had for DVD-censoring technology, arguing the Eleventh Circuit wrongly found the claims were preempted by federal law.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would appoint a special master to gather evidence to weigh legal questions related to the proposed suspension of the only sitting judge on the Philadelphia Traffic Court not indicted as part of a sweeping ticket-fixing scandal.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington has radically altered how we think about the Confrontation Clause, says Paul Shechtman, a partner with Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and former director of New York's Criminal Justice Division.
Motorists who allege Chevron USA Inc. illegally required them to provide their ZIP codes when they paid for gas at the pump with a credit card urged a California appeals court Tuesday to revive their class action, saying their privacy rights trumped Chevron's fraud concerns.
Landowners have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an appellate ruling that found a lower court properly enacted a management plan aimed at ending a long-running dispute over water rights in California's Santa Maria Valley, saying the plan improperly allocates water contrary to federal irrigation preference.
Santa Fe Tortilla Co. on Monday asked the D.C. Circuit for help halting the National Labor Relations Board's efforts to get an injunction against the company while the appeals court determines whether the board has the authority to seek such relief in the wake of the Noel Canning decision.
The Federal Circuit on Tuesday rejected an inventor’s bid to patent his digital rights management technology that allows singers and other music copyright holders to receive their due royalties when their work is publicly performed, ruling the technology behind the invention is obvious.
A Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America Inc. sales leader has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive his whistleblower suit accusing the company of defrauding Medicare by overbilling for stomach acid drug prescriptions, arguing that it meets False Claims Act qualifications.
The D.C. Circuit on Tuesday refused to let a group of Washington Mutual Bank noteholders enter Deutsche Bank AG's $10 billion suit over WaMu's poor-quality mortgages, ruling that their interest in the case was too conditional to justify intervening and that their inclusion could open the floodgates for other creditors.
Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court on Monday sided with Norfolk Southern Railway Corp. in ruling that federal regulations preempt a 1975 order from the state’s Public Utility Commission requiring the railroad to employ two brakemen around the clock to maintain safety at a rail yard.
The Eighth Circuit held Monday that Nautilus Insurance Co. had no duty to cover a botched bridge demolition in Illinois, finding three exclusions in a general liability policy applied, according to the published ruling.
Former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. director Rajat Gupta asked the Second Circuit on Tuesday to overturn his conviction for providing insider information to hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam, arguing the jury should not have heard certain wiretaps.
The interpretation by the Supreme Court of Texas in Reeder v. Wood County Energy LLC grants vast protection to oil and gas operators, but by doing so, it is perceived by some as muddling the differences between tort and contract law, says Michael Bolton and Kate Kalanick of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard argument for University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, and while the case seems promising for employers, it should also remind them that their best protection against retaliation claims will continue to be contemporaneous written evidence of a real reason for taking unfavorable actions against an employee, say attorneys with Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
The Illinois Supreme Court's ruling in Russell v. SNFA is troubling to part manufacturers as it suggests that an Illinois court can now find a part supplier bound to the marketing and distribution systems of its clients, regardless of where the end product is marketed, and find personal jurisdiction over the supplier, say attorneys with Locke Lord LLP.
The Fourth Circuit recently issued a ruling in PCS Nitrogen Inc. v. Ashley II of Charleston that may limit the availability of the bona fide prospective purchaser defense. By narrowly construing one of the elements of the BFPP defense, the court has underscored the importance of strict compliance with all requirements of the defense, say attorneys with K&L Gates LLP.
For insurers in Florida, the Florida District Court of Appeal decision in Goheagan v. American Vehicle Insurance Co. is troublesome as it suggests that even the best claims-settlement practices may not completely shield an insurer from potential bad faith liability, says Kip Adams of Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP.
Assuming a feature of cloud-based email service warrants patent protection, a method claim may need to cover the conduct of two or three entities that act in concert to put the email application into service. For claims of that sort, the Akamai decision makes proving induced infringement easier, says Steven Amundson of Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP.
It is time for the New Jersey Supreme Court to take up again the construction-defect coverage issues first addressed in Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick Inc. and to update them for the post-1986 commercial general liability coverage of subcontractors’ faulty workmanship, says Carl Salisbury of Kilpatrick Townsend Stockton LLP.
On May 13, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit and ruled that a farmer infringed Monsanto Co.’s patents for Roundup Ready seeds by growing subsequent, unauthorized generations beyond the first, authorized planting. The court did not set clear limits on the holding, which may be the source of controversy going forward, say attorneys with McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd.
The California Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Swift Distribution Inc. will resolve a hot debate about the scope of implied disparagement liability under California law, likely determining whether insurers must defend lawsuits involving allegations of intellectual property infringement, unfair competition and false advertising, says Tyler Gerking of Farella Braun & Martel LLP.
The decision in CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. spotlights the Federal Circuit’s serious divisions on Section 101 analysis. In the face of these divisions, decisions by Federal Circuit panels as to patent eligibility of specific claims under Section 101 will continue to be inconsistent, say Charles Macedo and David Goldberg of Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP.