In the two years since the U.S. Supreme Court declared that concrete injuries are necessary to establish Article III standing, federal courts around the country have moved to apply the holding to scores of privacy and data breach cases. Here, attorneys look back at how courts have been interpreting the landmark decision and offer predictions at how the deepening divide is likely to play out moving forward.
UnitedHealth Group Inc. asked Delaware's Supreme Court on Thursday to reverse a Chancery Court decision allowing investors to inspect some of the company's documents to investigate Medicare overbilling allegations, saying the lower court didn't consider if there was a credible basis to infer wrongdoing.
The Florida Department of Health said Friday that a patient's request that the Florida Supreme Court allow him to grow medical marijuana while the agency appeals a ruling that he has that right is an improper appeal and would expand the court's jurisdiction “beyond its constitutional bounds.”
The Trump administration on Friday urged the U.S. Supreme Court not to take up a Mexican man's appeal of a Fifth Circuit decision rejecting his argument that a state drug conviction did not make him removable under federal law relating to controlled substances.
The Fourth Circuit found Customs and Border Protection agents' reasonable suspicion of a man caught with a suitcase full of weapons parts trying to board a plane was enough to justify the forensic analysis of his iPhone, finding that no warrant was needed since the search was technically at the border.
The Fifth Circuit on Friday found Hartford Insurance Co. owes $2 million in coverage for a Louisiana truck accident, rejecting its argument that the wording of the policy limits the kind of vehicles covered.
An Illinois federal judge who graduated from Bradley University and spoke about his “love affair” with the school was not required to recuse himself from an employment discrimination suit against it, the Seventh Circuit said in an opinion Friday.
A Michigan appeals court has partially reversed the dismissal of a legal malpractice suit over a patent filing agreement that was never executed, rejecting the argument it was filed past the legal deadline and saying a written attorney-client agreement ended their relationship far later than the lower court interpreted.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a $4.5 million settlement resolving wage and meal break claims between Labor Ready Southwest Inc. and a class with more than 200,000 members after rejecting the parties’ earlier agreement, finding Friday that the district court adequately examined the deal’s fairness the second time around.
A Swiss commodities trader urged the Third Circuit on Thursday to reconsider its decision that barred the trader from targeting the co-owner of a New Jersey chemical company to enforce an arbitral award of more than $925,000 against the company, saying the panel improperly ignored evidence of fraud.
A Third Circuit ruling on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that prevented an electricity supplier from claiming a double deduction on a consolidated tax return has some practitioners worried that, if accepted, the justices could solidify a stand-alone tax doctrine previously used only as a method of statutory interpretation.
Players associations for the major sports leagues urged Indiana's high court on Friday to find that state publicity laws bar two daily fantasy sports operators from using players' names and likenesses without consent, in a case likely to echo far and wide after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling opened the door to legalized sports betting nationwide.
Homeowners claiming Citibank NA and JPMorgan Chase & Co. charged them unnecessary fees for property inspections after they defaulted on their loans asked the Ninth Circuit to revive their suits Friday, saying a lower court erred in finding no basis for their racketeering allegations against the banks and inspection companies.
The Federal Circuit revived a $5.4 million verdict against a manufacturer of captioned phones that a Wisconsin federal jury found infringed the asserted claims of a patent covering the devices, holding Friday that a judge erred in tossing the jury’s determination that the patent was valid.
The Third Circuit on Friday said the full court will not rehear the appeal of a proposed class of consumers suing Owens Corning over the quality of their roof shingles, cementing a panel’s finding that the consumers could not show that all of the products in question had the alleged defect.
The Alabama Supreme Court on Friday vacated a $10 million award in a suit accusing a hospital of causing a baby's blindness, deafness and seizure disorder due to a meningitis misdiagnosis, saying a trial judge's improper admission of evidence warrants a new trial.
The Delaware Supreme Court upheld the dismissal Friday of a shareholder derivative suit that accused the directors of Viacom Inc. of engaging in self-dealing by awarding unearned compensation to ailing board member Sumner Redstone despite his lack of involvement with the company.
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that struck down federal restrictions on sports betting turned on states' rights in a way that could have ripple effects in the ongoing debate over so-called sanctuary cities, attorneys say.
A Texas appellate court has sided with XTO Energy Inc. in a personal injury suit brought against it by workers who were injured in a North Dakota oilfield flash fire, agreeing with the company that Texas is an inconvenient forum for the case since it is facing similar suits in North Dakota.
The Ninth Circuit on Thursday resurrected a proposed class action alleging that the heart health claims on Pharmavite LLC’s vitamin E supplements are misleading, saying under California law, individual class members don't have to show they relied on the allegedly misleading statements.
With more judicial vacancies at the start of his term than any president in the past three decades, President Donald Trump has an unusual opportunity to reshape the federal judiciary. Here is Law360's comprehensive guide to the nominations.
In a series of exclusive interviews with Law360, current and former Supreme Court justices discussed topics as varied as the president’s wartime powers, their own decision-making process, the confirmation of the court’s newest member, and the void left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
On May 10, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced that it will seek public comment on its disparate impact rules. Despite its historically tough stance on the issue, HUD appears to be inviting insurers to renew their assault in a battle over fundamental aspects of insurance law, says Robert Helfand of Pullman & Comley LLC.
The Federal Circuit's May 16 decision in Praxair v. Mallinckrodt calls attention to the printed matter doctrine as an additional means for attacking diagnostic method and personalized medicine claims, already under siege from Section 101 subject matter eligibility challenges, says Paul Zagar of Leason Ellis LLP.
Initially, the First Circuit’s recent decision in Sepulveda-Vargas v. Caribbean Restaurants — a case involving claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act — may seem counterintuitive. But understanding the court's treatment of two features of the ADA’s "essential function" doctrine will help parties navigate the nuances of these types of lawsuits, says John Calhoun of Choate Hall & Stewart LLP.
In its recent decision in Martin v. Quartermain, the Second Circuit reiterated that meeting the Omnicare standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 is no small task for investors. This strict application of Omnicare ensures that Section 10(b) jurisprudence remains focused on identifying truly fraudulent conduct, say attorneys with Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.
It is safe to expect a narrow ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in Animal Science v. Hebei, instructing lower courts not to give conclusive deference to foreign sovereigns’ legal submissions. But it would be more sensible to instruct U.S. courts to assess whether these submissions are entitled to any deference in their country of origin and, if so, to give them that deference, say Michael Kimberly and Matthew Waring of Mayer Brown LLP.
Taxpayers that made the Gillette election on their California returns should file protests to contest any penalties assessed by the Franchise Tax Board, say attorneys at Reed Smith LLP.
While the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week removing the federal ban on sports betting may appear straightforward, the path toward regulating sports betting across the United States may be anything but simple, say attorneys with Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has denied review on 12 False Claims Act-related petitions this term, at least six petitions raising FCA issues currently remain on the docket. And three of them appear to have already piqued the court’s interest, say Michael Waldman and Ralph Mayrell of Robbins Russell Englert Orseck Untereiner & Sauber LLP.
On May 10, the Eleventh Circuit held in InComm v. Great American that computer fraud coverage did not apply to prepaid debit card holders who exploited a coding error in the insured's computer system. While this case does not involve social engineering fraud, it is nonetheless instructive on some of the key issues common in such disputes, say Robert MacAneney and John Pitblado of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA.
On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, recognizing a moral and legal truth that should be beyond question in American society. The refusal by some of President Donald Trump's judicial nominees to say whether they believe the case was decided correctly is indicative of the narrow-minded elitism they would bring to the bench, says professor Franita Tolson of the University of Southern California's Gould School of Law.