Thought leaders from around the world contribute their perspectives on landmark cases, new legislation, and legal perspectives on new technologies, business practices, and civil procedure.
Lyle D. Larson
Looking at the future of Chevron deference following Kennedy's unexpected departure.
Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti
Jamie L. Graham
Patent law is one more area up for debate with changes coming to the Supreme Court.
An overview on the ruling of Philips’ EFM+ (DVD) Patent in the Greek Supreme Court.
The result of the case is likely to have immediate and significant implications for a large number of property owners and developers in Washington.
Georgia, Alabama, Missouri, and Ohio are among the states fighting to overturn legal abortion in America. With a favorable bench, how might Roe v. Wade look in the future?
Justice Neil Gorsuch wasn’t a member of the U.S. Supreme Court back in 2004, when the justices ruled in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (124 S.Ct. 2739) that in certain limited circumstances, foreign nationals can use a 1789 law, the Alien Tort Statute, to sue in U.S. courts for violations of the law of nations.
The primary question will likely come down to whether or not cell phone data and location records are protected interests under the Fourth Amendment.
Holly M. Polglase and Matthew E. Bown
The Supreme Court decides the meaning of Article 10(A) of the Hague Service Convention.
Jeff C. Dodd, Tonya Gray, Ben Setnick, John R. Hutchins, Rose Cordero Prey, and Mark A. Chapman
This week, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court undid the settled practice of virtually nationwide venue for patent infringement cases.
Alexandra A. Bodnar
The case will now return to the district court to implement the settlement and begin the payout to retired players. More than 100 former players opted out of the class settlement, reserving the right to sue the NFL on their own.
R. Scott Oswald
If a government supplier quietly ignores vital rules but still bills taxpayers as if it had complied, can it be held liable under the federal False Claims Act — even if it never directly lies about its compliance?
Identify Exhaustion or Risk Waiving a Defense.
T. Luke Abel
The Beason family had a strong case, and the jury responded by awarding them a sizable payout. But, the court invoked a tort-reform statute that capped the family's winnings, much to the surprise of the jury.
The “Messi Doctrine”: Tax Advisors Could Be Prosecuted for Their Tax Advice and Meet the Same Fate Than Their Clients
Mariano Roca López
Could lawyers be held responsible for their client's fraudulent activity?
Mariano Roca López
Changes made by the Spanish Supreme Court could mean enhanced tax benefits to citizens.
Anastasia M. McCarthy
The new Child Victims Act is expected to have a profound and long-lasting impact on public school systems.
Leading cases on the Supreme Court’s 2018 business docket.
George Skibine and Alan Fedman
A look at the problems and opportunities for Native American tribes amid the uncharted territory of legal sports betting.
Students for Fair Admissions is challenging Harvard's policy of holistic admissions—and might change the future of affirmative action.
News from our listed lawyers. This week: New leadership at Richards, Layton & Finger, and developments in the Supreme Court.
The claimants’ workers’ compensation bar in Pennsylvania scored a significant victory when the state’s high court issued its decision in Protz v. WCAB.
Tim Freudenberger and Nancy Lubrano
In May 2014, class action defense attorney Tim Freudenberger from Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP, obtained a very favorable decision from the California Supreme Court in Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn., 59 Cal. 4th 1 (2014).
Gregory Bubalo and Katherine A. Dunnington
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California will significantly impact the plaintiffs’ choices of forums for the filing of mass torts actions.
In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, multiple plaintiffs sued Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS) in a California state court to recover damages allegedly caused by their use of BMS’ anti-clotting drug, Plavix.
Julie Desrosiers and Michael Shortt
The nine judges of the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the so-called “promise doctrine” was not part of Canadian patent law, and laid out a new approach to the utility requirement which substantially lowers the bar to proving usefulness of patented inventions.