Expert Analysis

• Calif. Case Raises Questions For Medical Practice Investors

  

  The California attorney general's amicus brief in Art Center v. WCE and the California Medical Association's response highlight how the California appeals court's ruling could significantly affect the structure and enforceability of succession arrangements in medical practice ownership, say attorneys at Ropes & Gray.

• Opinion

  Tribal Gaming Law Is Paramount In Prediction Market Cases

  

  Whatever the outcome of the preemption question in prediction market litigation involving states and the federal government, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act deals very specifically with gaming on Indian lands and almost certainly trumps the general federal laws at issue, says Kevin Washburn at the University of California, Berkeley.

• Series

  Playing Magic: The Gathering Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  The competitive card game Magic: The Gathering offers me a training ground for the strategic thinking skills crucial to litigation, challenging me to adapt to oft-updated rules, analyze text as complicated as any statute and anticipate my opponent’s next moves, says Christopher Smith at Lash Goldberg.

• Why Product-Based Public Nuisance Claims May Be Waning

  

  The Maryland Supreme Court's recent decision in Express Scripts v. Anne Arundel County is the latest in a national trend of rulings rejecting product-based public nuisance claims — but other forms of government litigation against companies that allegedly increase the cost of public services are likely to continue, say attorneys at Simpson Thacher.

• State Of Insurance: Q1 Notes From Illinois

  

  Matthew Fortin at BatesCarey discusses notable insurance developments in Illinois, including the state Supreme Court's highly anticipated Griffith Foods v. National Union Fire Insurance ruling, two bulletins from the Department of Insurance directed at public adjusters and a Seventh Circuit decision precluding a "super excess" tier of coverage.

• Fed. Circ. In March: IPR And The Limits Of Retroactivity

  

  The Federal Circuit recently ruled in Implicit v. Sonos that even though the clever retroactive correction of two invalidated patents theoretically should have changed the outcome of the inter partes review, the patentee had forfeited the right to rely on the correction — which is interesting for several reasons, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• Improving Well-Being In Law, 10 Years After Landmark Study

  

  An important 2016 study revealed significant substance abuse and mental health issues among lawyers, and while the findings helped normalize the conversation around these topics, a decade later, structural change is still needed, says Denise Robinson at PLI.

• Managing Tort Risk After Justices' War Zone Immunity Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hencely v. Fluor changes the tort landscape for battlefield contractors, whose liability for employee injury will now turn on compliance with battlefield directives — a question that will require discovery into highly sensitive details of combat operations and military decision-making, says Warren Bianchi at Fluet.

• What Mass. Ruling Clarifies About Whistleblower Protections

  

  A Massachusetts appellate court's recent decision in Galvin v. Roxbury Community College, finding that an employee retained whistleblower protections despite his reporting responsibilities and possible contribution to the compliance failure, requires employers to distinguish between performance-based decisions and their response to protected reporting, say attorneys at Smith Kane.

• AG Watch: Texas Charts A Course On Investigative Authority

  

  The Texas Supreme Court's recent decision in Texas v. PFLAG affirmed, and arguably expanded, the Texas attorney general's civil investigative demand authority, providing a road map that other courts evaluating state attorney general CIDs may find instructive, amid a lack of precedent, say attorneys at Kelley Drye.

• State Of Insurance: Q1 Notes From Pennsylvania

  

  From causation standards in first-party property claims, to the scope of statutory bad faith liability, to the enforceability of arbitration provisions in underinsured motorist disputes, three recent cases illustrate how Pennsylvania courts continued to refine the boundaries of coverage and dispute resolution, says Todd Leon at Marshall Dennehey.

• Building A Persecution Case After Justices' Asylum Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi raises the bar for overturning agency findings in federal court, changing how practitioners handling asylum and removal defense cases need to think about building a factual record and formulating arguments on appeal, say attorneys at Lai & Turner and Farzaneh Law.

• High Court 'Skinny Label' Case Will Matter To Tech Litigators

  

  Hikma v. Amarin, set for oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, has potential to affect not just generic drug label-based evidence in patent cases, but also how technology inducement cases are presented and proven, says attorney Abdul Abdullahi.

• Opinion

  New Legislation May Be Necessary To Fix Flawed Cox Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Cox v. Sony erroneously limited the doctrine of contributory copyright infringement and effectively eliminated such liability for internet service providers, and the most viable option to remedy the damage is to codify the pre-Cox common law of contributory copyright infringement, says Michael Cicero at Mavacy.

• Why Justices Seem Skeptical Of Curbing SEC Disgorgement

  

  Sripetch v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission presents an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the disgorgement limits it set six years ago in Liu v. SEC, with recent oral arguments suggesting the court sees disgorgement as an equitable remedy akin to unjust enrichment, say attorneys at Hueston Hennigan.