A former Balch & Bingham LLP environmental partner sentenced to five years for bribery has asked a judge to keep him out on bond pending appeal, while prosecutors said Thursday that shouldn't happen.
The U.S. Supreme Court late Friday lifted a stay on a suit lodged by 21 children accusing the federal government of pushing policies that will worsen climate change-related dangers, clearing the way for a landmark constitutional trial to begin in an Oregon federal courtroom but leaving room for the Ninth Circuit to potentially decide the case's future.
Shuffle Tech LLC has asked an Illinois federal judge for more than $19 million in attorneys' fees after a jury awarded the card shuffler maker $315 million on its claims that a competitor initiated sham patent litigation to shut it out of the market.
The Eighth Circuit ordered a new trial Friday in a long-running fight over trademark rights revolving around Sturgis, the famous South Dakota motorcycle meetup.
Imprisoned former New York state Sen. John Sampson pled guilty Friday to embezzling from two foreclosure transactions during his 18-year statehouse tenure, but a Brooklyn federal judge declined to immediately accept his admission under a plea deal that cuts her out of what would be his second sentencing related to the 2008 thefts.
An Indian tech company has asked a California federal judge to force the former CEO of a fintech fund to testify in a separate arbitration proceeding related to the companies' disputed $40 million partnership agreement, saying the executive has not turned up to trial and hasn't said when he'll return to the United States.
A strip club manager and “casual consulting” professional who wired $500,000 to a ticket resale entity controlled by Craig Carton told the Manhattan jury weighing fraud charges against the former sports radio talker Thursday that the money was earmarked for one of Carton's high-stakes gambling trips.
A recent change in guidelines Harvard University gives to admissions officers regarding the use of race in assigning an applicant’s “personal rating” was spotlighted in testimony Thursday, as the group suing the school over its affirmative action policies suggested Harvard made the shift in response to the high-profile litigation.
A Texas federal jury sided with a unit of private prison operator CoreCivic on Thursday in rejecting a former employee’s claims that he was fired for reporting that the government contractor violated the False Claims Act by failing to keep track of medications doled out in its halfway houses.
An $8.1 million jury verdict awarded to the buyers of a $20 million private plane who alleged they were misled about its condition must be axed because of insufficient evidence and the terms of the sales contract, Bombardier Aerospace Corp. told the Texas Supreme Court in oral arguments Thursday.
A Texas appeals court affirmed Thursday that a law firm and two lawyers owe almost $460,000 for dropping the ball in a client's medical malpractice suit, saying the arbitrator who awarded the damages had wide latitude.
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP shouldn’t be allowed to ditch its clients less than two weeks before the compounding pharmacies are due at trial for their breach of contract suit accusing Express Scripts of wrongfully ending their provider agreement, the pharmacy benefits manager told a Missouri federal judge.
Relatives of a man who died in a 2012 gas explosion told the Texas Supreme Court on Wednesday that opposing counsel was rightly sanctioned for commissioning a "push poll" phone survey that they say was aimed to taint the potential jury pool, while the attorney said he did nothing wrong.
The former head of quality control at the New England Compounding Center alternately fought back tears and sparred with a defense attorney Thursday during a tense day in Boston federal court, where a trial for six employees of the now-shuttered company whose moldy drugs sparked a national meningitis outbreak neared the end of its third week.
Beverage giant Monster Energy Co. told a California federal jury during opening statements Wednesday that an automotive tool company infringed its trademark green-and-black "monster" packaging with a "Monster Mobile" line of tools, while the tool company argued consumers won't confuse the two because "no one drinks a wrench."
A school groundskeeper who alleged that Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller caused his lymphoma agreed to a reduced award of $78 million, down from a $289 million jury verdict he won against the agrochemical giant in August, in order to avoid a new trial in the landmark case.
A dispute over allegedly shoddy legal advice on dissolving an insurance-marketing company should get a retrial, the estate of the company's former co-owner said Tuesday, telling an Iowa federal court that an expert witness sprang unannounced opinions at trial.
Convicted West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Allen Loughry has asked a West Virginia federal court for a new trial in a sealed motion, just weeks after he was found guilty on 11 counts of fraud, witness tampering and false statements.
The Seventh Circuit on Wednesday vacated a $27 million jury verdict awarded to four traders who claim that Allstate Insurance Co. didn't make necessary legal disclosures before firing them and then defamed them in public filings, finding that they haven’t shown they were denied jobs due to the alleged defamation.
Former New York state Sen. John Sampson, already jailed in a real estate corruption case, agreed to plead guilty to recently revived embezzlement charges related to his conviction in exchange for a sentence that adds zero jail time but makes him repay more than $91,000, prosecutors told a Brooklyn federal court on Wednesday.
The first comprehensive overhaul of California's Rules of Professional Conduct in nearly 30 years becomes operational on Nov. 1. Some of the new rules mirror the model language used by the American Bar Association, but many continue to reflect California’s unique approach to certain ethical questions, says Mark Loeterman of Signature Resolution LLC.
The balancing act between protecting attorneys’ speech rights and ensuring unbiased adjudications was highlighted recently in two cases — when Michael Cohen applied for a restraining order against Stephanie Clifford's attorney, and when Johnson & Johnson questioned whether a Missouri talc verdict was tainted by public statements from the plaintiffs' counsel, says Matthew Giardina of Manning Gross & Massenburg LLP.
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a pivotal antitrust decision in Ohio v. American Express. Three partners at Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP who represented AmEx explain how one of the most significant antitrust enforcement actions in recent history led to a landmark precedent for two-sided platforms.
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.
Tom Mesereau may be recently recognizable as one of the attorneys who defended Bill Cosby, but his biggest claim to fame is successfully defending Michael Jackson in 2005. On the eve of what would have been the King of Pop’s 60th birthday, Randy Maniloff, of White and Williams LLP, spoke to Mesereau about his unconventional path to a remarkable career.
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 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.
A Delaware federal court's ruling in Amgen v. Hospira last month may indicate a significant narrowing of the patent infringement exception for activities related to obtaining drug approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, say attorneys at Paul Hastings LLP.
In Sacerdote v. New York University — the first university 403(b) employee retirement plan fee case to go to trial — a New York federal court recently ruled in favor of NYU. Arthur Marrapese of Barclay Damon LLP summarizes the university's fiduciary practices and explains how they helped it prevail at the trial level.