U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday appeared to defend the reticent answers of recent high court nominees to lawmaker questions on hot-button legal issues, telling a Columbia Law School audience that during her own confirmation hearings, it would have been "improper" for her to comment on topics that might come before the bench.
Seventh Circuit judges said during oral argument Friday that they would have to “utterly negate” state appellate decisions to provide relief to two Colorado energy companies that want clearance from Illinois to dispose of acid waste in underground injection wells.
The Ninth Circuit on Thursday granted female Microsoft workers’ request that it review the denial of class certification in their pay bias suit, setting the stage for the court to weigh what it takes to show a companywide policy of discrimination under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dukes decision.
A California appeals court has reversed an injunction stopping the state insurance commissioner from enforcing three provisions of the state's Unfair Insurance Practices Act, ruling that the act applies not only to long-term unfair practices but also to singular violations.
A Texas appellate panel on Thursday affirmed a jury’s decision to clear a doctor in a suit accusing him of botching a woman’s hysterectomy and causing serious injuries, rejecting the woman’s argument that the trial judge erred by refusing to strike two potential jurors.
Alleging that the Third Circuit contradicted its own prior rulings and created a split with the Ninth Circuit by dismissing a Johnson & Johnson consumer’s proposed class action over talcum powder as “buyer’s remorse,” the customer’s attorneys on Friday asked for the full court to rehear the case.
A company misled by an errant employee into thinking he paid its taxes is still liable for interest and penalties when he didn’t, the Eighth Circuit said in an opinion Friday upholding a lower-court dismissal.
Independent power producers on Friday said the Seventh Circuit issued a legally flawed decision backing Illinois' program propping up struggling nuclear power plants, but added that they haven't yet decided if they will seek rehearing or will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
An en banc Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that a widow in an estate dispute engaged in an improper trial by ambush as she waived her attorney-client privilege, which she had previously asserted to shield communications between her husband and his attorney, as the case went before a jury.
An Oklahoma landowner has asked the Tenth Circuit to rehear his suit claiming the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs let an energy exploration company drill on his land without an environmental review, saying a circuit panel erred in finding that the statute of limitations barred him from filing suit.
A developer asked a Pennsylvania appeals court on Thursday to rehear its suit alleging it was defamed by an environmental group as the two competed over the development of a contaminated industrial site, saying the court's finding that the group’s comments were protected speech is inconsistent with prior rulings.
Travel agents asked the Ninth Circuit on Thursday to rehear its August ruling that shut down an antitrust suit accusing American Airlines, Delta, United and others of price-fixing, saying the U.S. Supreme Court's Twombly decision should not be used to suppress private antitrust cases.
The Third Circuit has upheld a New Jersey lower court's ruling that favored two Atlantic City casinos in a "high roller’s" suit claiming the casinos unlawfully promised him coupons and free amenities to gamble at their establishments but failed to back up their offers, finding that the gambler misunderstood the offers and saying "the house always wins."
Several Facebook Inc. users stood strong in their Ninth Circuit bid to revive multidistrict litigation accusing the social media giant of unlawfully tracking people's browsing activity after they sign out, asserting that the company's view that they deserve no recourse for its knowing deception defies "common sense and common decency."
The Second Circuit on Friday affirmed the dismissal of a screenwriter's suit accusing Simon & Schuster and Dreamworks of stealing his screenplay for use in the movie "Light Between Oceans," ruling there were not enough similarities between his script and a published book and movie to accuse the companies of ripping off his work.
A French unit of General Electric Co. urged the Eleventh Circuit on Thursday to revisit its decision finding that an Alabama steel plant owner doesn't have to arbitrate the companies' dispute over allegedly faulty motors, arguing that international arbitration law doesn't preclude non-signatories from enforcing an arbitration agreement.
The Office of the U.S. Solicitor General has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Third Circuit decision reviving multidistrict litigation over Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.’s alleged failure to warn about a risk of femoral fractures from its osteoporosis drug Fosamax, saying such claims are preempted because regulators rejected the company's proposed warning.
The Second Circuit appeared poised Friday to reverse U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff's dismissal of former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's suit accusing The New York Times of publishing a defamatory editorial, with a panel member saying the judge usurped the role of a jury in examining the mindset of the writer.
The Sixth Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s decision favoring a restaurant chain run in partnership with country singer Dierks Bentley, saying none of the arguments raised in Nashville pub The Row’s infringement suit over the chain’s "Whiskey Row" trademark alter the conclusion that its own mark is merely descriptive.
The D.C. Circuit on Friday nixed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's refusal to let TransCanada Corp.'s U.S. natural gas storage unit charge market-based rates, saying the commission failed to justify that conclusion while letting other companies in the same market charge market-based rates.
The Ninth Circuit ruled Thursday that the government must face a suit brought by a naturalized U.S. citizen who alleges it put his name on the no-fly list to try to induce him to become an informant, reversing an Oregon federal court’s decision.
As the D.C. Circuit judge makes his bid for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, here’s our look at the politics and predictions surrounding the nomination along with what a Justice Brett Kavanaugh could mean for your practice.
The latest term ended with a bang with Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement, but the cases themselves packed a punch this term. With the Supreme Court back at full strength, the docket was loaded with issues that divided the nine justices. Here, Law360 takes a look at the oddest voting lineups, the juiciest dissents and the best oral argument moments from a contentious session.
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 Sheppard Mullin v. J-M Manufacturing Co., the California Supreme Court ruled last month that a law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict with another current client did not categorically disentitle the firm from recovering fees. But the court didn’t provide hoped-for guidance on how to write an enforceable advance conflict waiver, says Richard Rosensweig of Goulston & Storrs PC.
In this monthly series, Amanda Brady of Major Lindsey & Africa interviews management from top law firms about the increasingly competitive business environment. Here we feature Melanie Green, chief client development officer at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
The Federal Circuit's decision last month in Maatita effectively eliminates the design patent requirement that drawings must enable a person of skill in the art to make and use the invention. The court failed to properly apply statutory standards, leading to an improper result, say Robert Anders of A Design Consultancy and Christopher Rourk of Jackson Walker LLP.
In Doe v. Baum, the Sixth Circuit recently ruled that a school must give respondents in a disciplinary proceeding an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and adverse witnesses. The decision is impactful not only from a constitutional due process perspective, but also in terms of Title IX’s mandates, says Steven Richard of Nixon Peabody LLP.
A New York law that took effect this summer prohibits predispute agreements to arbitrate sexual harassment claims. Although well-intentioned, this provision is unlikely to significantly alter the status quo, say Ann-Elizabeth Ostrager and Jacob Singer of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.
The U.S. Supreme Court should agree to hear Lacaze v. Louisiana, a case involving an egregious conflict of interest for a judge who presided over a capital case. It is an opportunity to remind judges to disclose their known connections to cases before them, and recuse themselves when necessary, says George Eskin, a retired California Superior Court judge.
In TIAA-CREF Insurance Appeals, the Delaware Supreme Court struck a blow to insurers seeking to avoid responsibility for settlement payments made by policyholders. Though decided under New York law, this opinion opens the door to a fact-specific analysis that may help policyholders facing similar denials, say Catherine Doyle and Jan Larson of Jenner & Block LLP.
Sitting U.S. senators and a former congressional staffer have accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of misconduct, including being untruthful in his nomination and confirmation processes for both the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Could this subject him to impeachment? Attorney Barbara Radnofsky explores the question through past precedent.
Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court may accelerate its narrowing of the discretion given to administrative agencies to regulate via rulemaking. An indication of how a Justice Kavanaugh might deal with Chevron deference is found in his dissent in Northeast Hospital Corp. v. Sebelius, say Andrea Driggs and Christopher Thomas of Perkins Coie LLP.
In Martinez v. Landry Restaurants, a California state appeals court recently held that the time period during which a federal appeal from an order remanding a case to state court is pending should be included when calculating the “five-year rule” for bringing a case to trial. This shows that all counsel should consider whether to seek a stay of proceedings where the case crosses jurisdictional boundaries, says Karin Bohmholdt of Greenberg Traurig LLP.