A Pennsylvania appeals court on Thursday upheld a trial judge’s decision to grant a midtrial win to a physician's assistant accused of negligently spilling acid on a child during a skin procedure, rejecting the patient’s argument that medical expert testimony was unnecessary.
An Indiana appeals court on Thursday affirmed a doctor’s trial win in a suit accusing him of negligently performing a surgery which ended in the patient's death, saying the patient’s father’s pretrial request to swap out his primary medical expert witness was properly denied.
A key prosecution witness in the $20 million cash-for-investment bribery case against former union boss Norman Seabrook told a Manhattan jury Thursday that a designer man-purse and some friendly treatment soothed the defendant when he learned of his less-than-expected $60,000 alleged payout.
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.”
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.
Many legal teams involved in cross-border matters still hesitate to use technology assisted review, questioning its ability to handle non-English document collections. However, with the proper expertise, modern TAR can be used with any language, including challenging Asian languages, say John Tredennick and David Sannar of Catalyst Repository Systems.
Last month, the Fourth Circuit announced that it would not revive the the Lipitor multidistrict litigation. The court's decision was a welcome affirmation that, in excluding the plaintiffs' expert witnesses and weak testimony on causation, the MDL court had done exactly what it was supposed to, says Eric Alexander of Reed Smith LLP.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Rule 30(b)(6) witness gives testimony on behalf of a company and the general rule is the company cannot present facts that conflict with the testimony of its designee. But as the Tenth Circuit recently held in Snapp v. United Transportation Union, the general rule should not be overstated, says Steven Kramer of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC.
A D.C. federal judge's decision last month in United States v. AT&T contains important insights that will be influential well beyond the confines of the now-completed $85 billion merger between AT&T and Time Warner, say Nathaniel Wackman and Lee Van Voorhis of Jenner & Block LLP.
The recent Pennsylvania federal court decision in Federal Trade Commission v. AbbVie is likely to have significant effects on antitrust cases challenging patent litigations as shams, say Leslie John and Stephen Kastenberg of Ballard Spahr LLP.
Earlier this year, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., made headlines with his decision to leave Congress and return to law. In this series, former members of Congress who made that move discuss how their experience on the Hill influenced their law practice.