With the U.S. Supreme Court set to consider whether businesses can force employees to waive the right to collectively pursue employment-related claims, attorneys say the outcome could hinge on the person President-elect Donald Trump chooses to fill the high court’s vacant seat.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday pressed a professional debt collector to explain why it should not face legal liability if it pursues stale debt in bankruptcy proceedings, and questioned to what extent the U.S. Bankruptcy Code may preclude debtors from filing consumer protection law reprisals.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in an immigration case over whether the definition of a “crime of violence” is unconstitutionally vague, with the justices grappling with the vagueness standard and how the definition differed from a separate statute that was struck down in 2015.
The Center for Biological Diversity is urging the U.S. Supreme Court not to upend a Ninth Circuit decision backing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's critical habitat designation for the polar bear, saying the state of Alaska and other challengers have made too big of a deal out of the size of the habitat designation.
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. asked the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday to reverse a California federal judge's ruling that it must defend Tempur-Sealy International Inc. in a proposed class action alleging that the mattress company lied in marketing materials, arguing that the underlying complaint doesn't seek any damages covered by Hartford's policy.
The highest-profile trademark case in years will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, pitting a rock band and a billion-dollar football team against the federal government — and the First Amendment against laws limiting offensive speech. To get you up to speed, here's everything you need to know.
A band of companies and others opposing Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP’s appeal at the California Supreme Court of a $3.8 million fee forfeiture over an undisclosed conflict are “divorced from the realities of the modern legal marketplace” and ignore the benefits conflict waivers bestow on clients, the firm said in a Tuesday filing.
A North Carolina appellate court on Tuesday cleared a physician’s assistant and a doctors group of failing to properly treat the abnormally high blood sugar levels that put a boy into a coma, saying the evidence indicated that the assistant complied with the appropriate standard of care.
Capital One told a New York appellate panel Tuesday that a lower court should have forced loan guarantors to cough up $57 million for a defaulted loan for taxi medallions, saying that the contract language calling the guarantees absolute, irrevocable and unconditional entitles the bank to collect from the guarantors.
The Federal Circuit on Tuesday unwound a lower court’s ruling that had freed Ericsson Inc. from infringement claims on three patents, concluding in a split decision that the trial judge had done a jury’s job by weighing evidence from each party before ruling in Ericsson’s favor.
A Pennsylvania appellate court on Tuesday reversed a trial court's dismissal of a medical malpractice suit filed in connection with a mental health patient's suicide, saying the evidence showed that the hospital may have been grossly negligent in allowing the patient to leave the emergency room.
Quality Egg LLC executives Austin “Jack” DeCoster and his son Peter DeCoster have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their jail sentences related to a national salmonella outbreak, saying individuals cannot get jail time for vicarious liability offenses.
The University of Notre Dame urged the First Circuit on Tuesday to uphold a Massachusetts federal judge's confirmation of an arbitral finding that a builder and developer were at fault for problems at a London dormitory, saying the judge rightly recognized the finding as final.
A slew of developers and contractors that worked on a Chicago condominium building urged the Seventh Circuit on Monday to uphold a lower court's ruling that Westfield Insurance Co. must defend them in construction defect litigation, asserting that the underlying suit alleges multiple forms of covered property damage.
A coalition of unions representing pilots and flight attendants has sued the U.S. Department of Transportation in the D.C. Circuit to challenge the agency's grant of a foreign air carrier permit to Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA's Irish subsidiary.
The Second Circuit on Tuesday overturned a federal district judge’s finding that a $1.5 billion out-of-court restructuring proposed by for-profit college operator Education Management Corp. violated a Depression-era law meant to protect bondholders, saying the payment terms governing the bonds at issue were not modified.
A North Carolina appellate court on Tuesday rejected an appeal in a medical malpractice suit accusing a urologist of botching a man’s prosthetic penis implant surgery, saying the patient’s voluntary dismissal of certain claims did not constitute a final judgment, therefore the ruling in question was not eligible for appeal.
The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday declined to review a Federal Circuit finding that it is jurisdictionally barred under the high court’s Cuozzo decision from considering if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred when it invalidated two SightSound Technology patents challenged by Apple on grounds Apple didn't explicitly raise.
An unauthorized immigrant who says he should be allowed to challenge federal officials for allegedly detaining him longer than necessary has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case after the Eleventh Circuit said he could not receive monetary relief.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups have asked the Fifth Circuit to deny Texas’ bid to throw out part of the federal government’s regional haze plan, arguing that instead the EPA should be allowed to revise the plan on remand.
Bad cases make bad law, but egregiously overreaching cases can make good law. In Wallis v. Brainerd Baptist Church, decided recently by the Tennessee Supreme Court, a dead man's estate sued the seller of a defibrillator that was available but not used on the decedent during his heart attack. Imposing liability in such circumstances would be bad public policy, says Eric Alexander of Reed Smith LLP.
After a full year in effect, the amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) has been tested in a variety of district courts. A sampling of these decisions reveals that courts seem to be adhering closely to the amended rule and ordering adverse inference instructions only where there was intent to deprive another party of access to relevant information, say Carrie Amezcua and Samantha Southall of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC.
In 2016, courts around the country heard cases involving a variety of False Claims Act and other enforcement-related matters. Going forward these case law developments are expected to have an impact on both the scope of FCA liability and the means by which FCA liability can be proven at trial, say attorneys at Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC.
Unless reversed or modified, the Ninth Circuit's decision in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods means class action plaintiffs aren't required to establish an administratively feasible way to identify putative class members for class certification. But aside from that holding, the opinion addresses several other arguments often raised in class actions in ways that are mostly unhelpful for defendants, say attorneys at Greenberg Traurig LLP.
Many organizations are interested in finding electronic discovery partners who offer tantalizingly low prices for electronic discovery services. However, unforeseen gaps, lax security practices, ignorance of global practices and delayed deliverables can all add up to a surprisingly large final cost, says Michael Cousino of Epiq Systems.
Two sections of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act are the subject of writs of certiorari that have just been granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sandoz. The need for resolution of ambiguity in the statute is clear, says Scott Pierce of Hamilton Brook Smith Reynolds PC.
As media advocates, we wondered how President-elect Donald Trump's soon-to-be-announced U.S. Supreme Court nominee might react to Trump’s vow to shred the hard-won protections now embedded in the law of libel. We found that none of the opinions from judges on his shortlist hint at any inclination to depart from these established rules, say Gayle Sproul and Max Mishkin of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz LLP.
In Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, the Seventh Circuit recently reasoned that when sanctioning a party’s misconduct under inherent authority or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a preponderance of evidence is sufficient. The decision will no doubt extend beyond the requisite proof for discovery-related sanctions and misconduct and provide guidance on the applicable burden of proof in other contexts, say attorneys at Sedgwick LLP.
The current eight-member U.S. Supreme Court will examine two Native American cases early this year, and may hear additional cases following the confirmation of a ninth justice. Thomas Gede of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP discusses the most important cases to pay attention to, including Lewis v. Clarke and Lee v. Tam.
Is Amazon legally the seller of items made available by third parties on Amazon.com? And is the e-commerce giant liable if those products infringe someone else's patents? A Washington federal court answered no to both questions. As the Federal Circuit considers the case, it must balance patent protection with market access, says JD Wooten of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP.