(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of a declaratory judgment to the plaintiff that it hadn't breached any contractual agreement with Korea, but refusing a permanent injunction barring Korea from suing them in Korean courts in a contract suit between a US defense contractor and Korea in a complex set of exchanges involved in upgrading the country's fighter planes.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld the constitutionality of a recently enacted California statute that effectively bans the importation and sale of ivory and rhinoceros horn. Affirmed judgment on the pleadings against the Ivory Education Institute's lawsuit, which contended that the statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a trade dress infringement action brought by the marketer of the artificial sweetener Splenda against defendants, who package and distribute sucralose as store brands to a number of retail grocery chains, alleging their product packaging is confusingly similar to Splenda's, denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part, but reversed in part as to certain boxes and bags where plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the third element of trade dress infringement, as there was a likelihood of confusion between those products' trade dresses and the analogous Splenda trade dress.

(United States Tenth Circuit) - In an action claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) trademark infringement and unfair competition claims failed as plaintiff did not show that "Utah Lighthouse" was protectable, that defendant's use was in connection with any goods or services, and that defendant was likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of goods sold on its online bookstore; 2) defendant lacked a bad faith intent to profit from the use of plaintiff's trademark in several domain names under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA); and 3) defendant's website met safe harbor conditions of the ACPA since it was a parody.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part. Rembrandt filed numerous patent infringement actions against dozens of cable companies. After years of litigation, the district entered final judgment against Rembrandt for all claims. Cable company defendants filed a motion for attorney fees. The district court issued an order declaring the case exceptional and granting more than $51 million in fees. Rembrandt appealed the award. The Federal Circuit affirmed the exceptional case determination, but vacated and remanded the fees award for further analysis of the connection between the fees and the plaintiff’s misconduct.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees is vacated and the case remanded where the police’s seizure of defendant’s clothing from a clear hospital bag without a warrant or defendant’s consent violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an environmental action, challenging a Town Board's positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and requiring a draft environmental impact statement, the trial court's dismissal of the petition is affirmed where the positive declaration is not justiciable and the case not ripe for judicial review.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an appeal from the trial court's denial of two consolidated petitions to set aside the certification of the environmental impact report and related permits for the construction of an arena to house the Golden State Warriors basketball team, as well as other events, and the construction of adjacent facilities, in the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan area of San Francisco, the trial court's judgment is affirmed where there is no merit to plaintiffs' objections to the sufficiency of the city's environmental analysis and its approval of the proposed project.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an antitrust suit brought by professional minor league baseball players, the district court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed because professional minor league baseball is exempt from federal antitrust laws.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. Olympic Committee and USA Track and Field did not violate antitrust law by imposing advertising restrictions during the Olympic Trials. A chewing gum company that wished to pay to display its logo on athletes' apparel brought this suit to challenge the advertising restrictions. Rejecting the company's arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant organizations were entitled to implied antitrust immunity on the basis that their advertising restrictions were integral to performance of their duties under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit in which three former college football players contended that online fantasy-sports games violated their statutory right of publicity under Indiana law by using their names, pictures, and statistics without compensation. Relied on an answer to a question that had been certified to the Indiana Supreme Court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a construction company's suit against a city for breach of contract, alleging that the city unlawfully assessed liquidated damages against the company for failure to complete a construction project on time, the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where plaintiff is not excused from the normal requirement of administrative exhaustion under Maryland law.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - District court's granting of summary judgment and bench verdict for Defendant affirmed. Sherman Act claim fails where the only current feasible way to comply with Chicagoland area city commercial fire safety ordinances was to use an exclusive provider. Under Fisher v. City of Berkeley, government restraints on trade imposed unilaterally do not form the basis of a Section 1 or Section 2 claim.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an Indian tribe's complaint against federal and Rhode Island agencies concerning a highway bridge reconstruction. The tribe argued, at base, that the state of Rhode Island broke a promise to give the tribe three parcels of land as mitigation for the expected negative impact on historic tribal land of an I-95 bridge replacement project. Agreeing with the district court, the First Circuit held that the tribe's claims were barred by federal sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a 2015 Nevada statute designed to protect construction general contractors from certain claims was not preempted by ERISA. A group of labor unions brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Nevada's SB 223, limiting general contractors' vicarious liability for their subcontractors' unpaid labor debts, was preempted by ERISA. Finding no preemption, the Ninth Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment for the unions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that California did not violate the Equal Protection Clause when it adopted a 2015 amendment that conferred prevailing-wage protections on delivery drivers of ready-mix concrete. Reversed a summary judgment decision in this case involving a law that guarantees a special minimum wage to workers employed on public-works projects.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a construction contractor was entitled to recover attorney fees he incurred in seeking to enforce his right to arbitrate a claim that an Indian tribe failed to pay him for his work.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a general building contractor did not file a timely court challenge to a citation issued by government inspectors who found a safety violation at a job site. Affirmed dismissal of the contractor's petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an administrative decision by the Santa Monica Community College District to allow a contractor to replace one subcontractor with another subcontractor on a construction project. Affirmed the denial of the plaintiff subcontractor's writ petition.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an arbitrator made an "irrational" decision in a contract dispute between two government contractors. Affirmed the district court's vacatur of the arbitration award, in this case involving contracts to construct buildings and facilities in Afghanistan.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an opinion that clarifies the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, the California Supreme Court held that only certain causes of action here arose from protected speech. In the underlying dispute, a developer had sued the City of Carson and another developer in connection with negotiations about the possibility of building a National Football League stadium in the city.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld San Francisco's decision to order a prime contractor on a public works project to replace a subcontractor. Reversed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a school district could impose school impact fees on an agricultural company's new residential housing complex even though it was intended to house only adult seasonal farmworkers. Reversed the decision below.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction company's surety (an insurance company) may not augment its contractual indemnification rights with the ancient doctrine of quia timet -- equitable protection from probable future harm. The construction company allegedly had gone belly up on a government project. Affirmed summary judgment against the surety's claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company owed a duty to defend a general contractor who was being sued by homeowners over alleged roofing defects. The case involved a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to a roofing subcontractor. Reversed the decision below.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that President Trump's executive order withholding all federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities was unconstitutional. California municipalities brought this suit arguing that the executive order violated the principle of Separation of Powers as well as the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the municipalities. However, the panel vacated the nationwide injunction based on an absence of specific findings justifying the broad scope, and remanded for further findings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a university-affiliated medical practice must return $8 million to the federal agency that administers Medicare. The medical practice's test of a new care management model (a Medicare demonstration project) did not achieve the expected cost savings. Upheld an administrative order.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The Illinois Child Care Assistance Program could not collect overpayments made to debtors under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program who filed for bankruptcy.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant, housing authority, terminated Plaintiff’s federally funded subsidized housing program. The trial court ordered Defendant to vacate its order. The appeals court found that there was nothing in the Defendant’s hearing of termination that indicated an abuse of discretion and reversed the trial court’s ruling.

A very long scam e-mail from Linda Zhong who lives in another dimension in time.

The 419 scammers are afraid that they are going to pay your fake fund into the wrong bank account, so they want to make sure if they have the correct banking details... how considerate of them.

A general spammer that tries to throw in everything he can in one e-mail, from flags and banners and PVC printing to mosquito nets and aluminum fold-away wash lines. This spammer is an electronic convenience store!

The Canadian Pharmacy Spammers are at it again, or should we say still at it again.

A Liberty Life Debit Order Authorization from Microsoft, via Standard Bank. This is enough to make anyone confused. Clearly these phishing scammers did not think this one through.

Phishing scammers using UCount awards as bait to steal your Standard Bank Internet Banking login details.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer was entitled to millions of dollars in compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(Supreme Court of California) - Upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires wireless phone service companies to obtain permits and conform with aesthetic guidelines when installing lines and equipment on utility poles. The companies sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. However, the California Supreme Court was not persuaded by the companies' arguments.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an electrical contractor was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a short-term vacation rental business was improperly denied compensation for losses attributable to BP's 2010 oil spill. The settlement program administrator, and the district court, misinterpreted the settlement agreement's definition of a failed business. Vacated and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental group's challenge to the issuance of a revised permit for a landfill. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion in a Freedom of Information Act case, held that the Sierra Club was entitled to certain records generated during the Environmental Protection Agency's rule-making process concerning cooling water intake structures. However, other records were protected from public release by the deliberative process privilege. Reversed in part and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.