Former SAC Capital Advisors LP manager Mathew Martoma asked the full Second Circuit to reconsider his insider trading appeal Wednesday, saying a recent split decision ignored U.S. Supreme Court rulings that passing tips to others is a crime only when the insider benefits.
The case against Paul Manafort focused Thursday on allegations that he tricked banks into more favorable loans, but it kicked off with a mea culpa from the Virginia federal judge admitting he may have made a mistake.
A California federal judge issued a findings of fact order that favored Ugg maker Deckers Outdoor Corp. following a $5.2 million verdict that held Romeo and Juliette Inc. liable for infringing two design patents.
A federal judge in Delaware said he is inclined to stand pat on most of the jury verdicts and rulings that produced an $82.5 million award in late July against Groupon Inc. for infringing four early, e-commerce-related IBM Corp. patents.
A group of New York plaintiffs that sued Johnson & Johnson and its orthopedics unit over allegedly defective hip implants has asked a Texas federal court for a nearly $246 million judgment in the bellwether case after a jury found the company liable for the defects and fraud.
The Third Circuit agreed on Thursday that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent redefinition of federal bribery law meant that Ex-Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., should be retried on charges including allegations that he accepted gifts from a friend in exchange for attempting to secure him an ambassadorship.
Counsel for property owners impacted by 2016’s Little Valley Fire told a Nevada jury during Wednesday opening statements that it was the Nevada Division of Forestry’s decision to ignore its own plan and abandon a prescribed burn during high winds, causing the devastating wildfire.
A prosecutor worked Wednesday to shore up cooperator Rick Gates' testimony against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in the face of attacks on Gates' credibility, in part by asserting to a Virginia federal jury that Manafort wouldn't have noticed that his business partner was skimming from their lobbying firm's revenue.
Bowles Rice LLP is headed to trial against a longtime partner, title insurer First American, after a federal court ruled Wednesday enough facts remain disputed about the law firm's share of blame around a $41 million settlement following the rocky construction of a coal power plant, whose title First American insured.
A California federal judge on Wednesday trimmed $2 million from a jury’s $6.5 million wrongful death award in a suit that accused a Sacramento County sheriff’s deputy of fatally shooting an unarmed schizophrenic man, saying the death of the man’s father during trial warranted the reduction.
An Indiana federal judge Wednesday conditionally reduced a $35 million verdict against a Johnson & Johnson unit awarded to a woman who was found to have been harmed by a pelvic mesh device — saying if she didn’t accept a $15 million reduction she’d face a new trial on punitive damages.
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP urged a California appeals court Wednesday to find it doesn’t owe a legal recruiter $335,000 for connecting the firm with its now managing partner-elect, arguing a jury found the recruiter didn’t fulfill his deal with Manatt and there was no evidence that was the firm’s fault.
A Colorado jury has rendered a $1.7 million verdict against Mile High Heating & Cooling, its owner and its manager after finding the company installed approximately 1,000 furnaces without obtaining building permits, the state attorney general said Wednesday.
A California appellate court rejected a former Stanford University swimmer’s argument that his previous conviction for sexual assault with intent to commit rape should be overturned because he was only engaging in “outercourse,” ruling Wednesday that there was plenty of evidence that he had more than just “dry-humping” in mind.
Jones Day has grabbed a “first chair litigator” in Silicon Valley from Paul Hastings LLP with nearly 20 years of experience in patent and technology work, the firm announced Monday.
Bombardier and Arctic Cat each lost bids for a new trial in a snowmobile patent dispute when a Minnesota federal judge ruled Tuesday that there was sufficient evidence supporting a jury’s finding that Arctic Cat infringed one of Bombardier’s patents, and that the contested claims in two patents were invalid.
The Manhattan federal judge overseeing the bribery trial of former union boss Norman Seabrook was curious Wednesday about the $60,000 allegedly paid to Seabrook in exchange for a hedge fund investment, pressing a key witness on how that much cash could have been stuffed in a small-sized “man-purse.”
A Johnson & Johnson unit pushed a Pennsylvania appeals court on Wednesday to jettison a $2.5 million verdict on grounds that a trial judge improperly barred it from using a scientific article to challenge an expert’s opinion that the antipsychotic drug Risperdal caused an adolescent boy to grow breasts.
A hospital that owes $6.3 million to the New Zealand Olympic snowboard team's former coach following a medical malpractice trial asked a Colorado federal judge to look at the terms of a confidential settlement the man previously reached with doctors, saying state law prohibits double recoveries.
Pennsylvania courts should not have been allowed to retain jurisdiction over a case involving injuries that a New Jersey woman suffered after having an implant of an allegedly defective mesh product manufactured by Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Ethicon Inc., a state appeals court heard during oral arguments on Wednesday.
Notwithstanding the latest salary war among prominent law firms, I urge my middle-aged and older colleagues to help the recent graduates we know focus on the long term. Even if the salary is the same, there is a big difference between an institutional firm and the relatively younger firms matching BigLaw, says J.B. Heaton, a University of Chicago business law fellow and former partner at Bartlit Beck.
Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court ruled in Hassell v. Bird that Yelp could not be ordered to remove negative reviews of a law firm that were found to be defamatory. While the decision is a victory for internet platforms and websites, the scope of immunity under the Communications Decency Act has not been fully drawn out, says Pooja Nair of TroyGould PC.
Law professor Nathalie Martin's new book, "Lawyering From the Inside Out: Learning Professional Development Through Mindfulness and Emotional Intelligence," can be of value to any lawyer aiming to achieve greater productivity, relieve the stress of the legal profession and focus on goals, says U.S. District Chief Judge Denise Page Hood of the Eastern District of Michigan.
Presidential impeachment exists not so that one party can decapitate the other, but to preserve the foundation of our democracy. For an impeachment to be legitimate, it must be a fair process in which Congress speaks for a majority of the American people in undoing an election, say Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School and Joshua Matz of Gupta Wessler PLLC.
The blockbuster e-discovery cases, with big sanctions and bigger controversies, have been few and far between this year. But that doesn’t mean the legal questions around e-discovery have been answered. Let’s take a closer look at three cases worthy of our attention, says Casey Sullivan, an attorney at discovery technology provider Logikcull.
The Aleynikov case demonstrates that employees who attempt to use the proprietary source code of their former employers without authorization may face not only the risk of civil liability, but also prosecution under local criminal statutes. And they could also face liability under the recently expanded federal Economic Espionage Act, says Jonathan Waisnor of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.
Later this week, Harvard Law students will begin bidding on interview slots with the nation’s top law firms. Our institutions owe it to their students not only to require firms to disclose mandatory arbitration provisions in new associate contracts, but also to bar employers from on-campus recruiting if they require these provisions, says Isabel Finley, a third-year student at Harvard Law School and president of the Harvard Women’s Law Association.
Under the U.S. Constitution, impeachment requires no charging of crime, no intent to do wrong and no lawbreaking. Rather, impeachment focuses on significance of effect. President Bill Clinton's 1998 impeachment was a clear demonstration of the differences between criminal and impeachment prosecution, says attorney Barbara Radnofsky.
The #MeToo movement has called attention to something that feminists avoided focusing on during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton — something the law is not very good at capturing. “Consent” may be obtained under varying kinds and degrees of coercive conditions. And it can be refused at a high cost, says Elizabeth Rapaport of the University of New Mexico School of Law.
The U.S. Constitution specifies that a president can only be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” A comparison of the two presidential impeachments to date suggests that the logistics of the process are fluid and unpredictable, says David O. Stewart, who was defense counsel during the U.S. Senate impeachment trial of Judge Walter Nixon.