(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court had jurisdiction over a Labor Management Relations Act Claim relating to a maritime labor union because the act provides federal jurisdiction over suits for violation of contracts between employers and labor organizations.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit alleging unequal pay due to gender discrimination and retaliation that lost on all counts at jury trial was affirmed. The jury instructions and verdict forms did not prejudice the case.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The panel affirmed Los Angeles County was not entitled to 11th Amendment immunity because the County was not an arm of the state when it administered the In-Home Supportive Services program. The court reversed on the collective period’s effective date.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiffs, employees of Defendant, signed an agreement with Defendant requiring binding arbitration of employment disputes after the complaint was filed. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration agreeing with Plaintiff that the arbitration agreement referred to future claims not the past ones brought by Plaintiff against Defendant. The appeals court disagreed stating that the agreement to arbitrate was clear and there was no qualifying language as to past or future events.

(California Court of Appeal) - Plaintiff applied for disability retirement. His employer disputed his retirement and his claim of industrial causation. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that the disability was industrial, but that he was barred from receiving retirement benefits because his claim was untimely. The appeals court held that the industrial causation claim was timely and reversed the WCAB order and remanded with directions to grant Plaintiff’s claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The district court dismissal of a suit for failure to exhaust remedies was vacated because the claims of discrimination had been exhausted before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that local water districts were not entitled to be reimbursed by the state for the cost of complying with unfunded state mandates to improve water service. The water districts argued that reimbursement was necessary because the passage of Proposition 218 had limited their authority to levy fees. Disagreeing, the California Third Appellate District concluded that their authority to levy fees had not changed. The panel affirmed the trial court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the U.S. Tax Court's ruling that an energy company was liable for a deficiency of more than $400 million for certain previous tax years, and also for $87 million in accuracy-related penalties.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a vehicle inspection company that leased land from the U.S. Navy failed to demonstrate that county tax authorities overvalued its leasehold interest by assuming that the lease would be extended beyond its original term. Affirmed the dismissal of the taxpayer's suit seeking a tax refund.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of taxpayers' suit alleging that a county government imposed a disproportionate tax on commercial and industrial properties in one particular township as opposed to similar types of properties elsewhere in the county. Held that the district court appropriately abstained from hearing this Equal Protection Clause suit under the comity doctrine.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - On reconsideration, held that a taxpayer had 60, not 30, days to file his notice of appeal from an order finding him in contempt of court for failure to fully comply with an Internal Revenue Service summons. Withdrew a prior order dismissing his appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the dismissal of a telecommunication company's lawsuit seeking a refund of California sales and use taxes. Held that the tax exclusion for telephone lines does not extend to pre-installation component parts that may one day be incorporated into completed telephone systems.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a U.S. Tax Court decision, held that the former sole shareholder of a company that received a $65 million litigation settlement was liable for the taxes, and in particular the pre-notice interest component, despite having entered into a tax-shelter transaction.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the Tax Court's finding that a woman did not qualify for innocent spouse relief, in a case involving a married couple's deficient joint federal income tax return.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a county appeals board erred in denying a hotel's request for a property tax refund. The hotel contended that the property valuation was incorrect. Reversed and remanded to the board for a new hearing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a homeowner was not entitled to a refund of property taxes. County officials correctly determined that there was a change in ownership of a house she co-owned with her sister, which triggered a reassessment of its value. Affirmed a judgment after trial.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that a Switzerland-based financial firm could proceed with a tax refund claim. The firm sought a $38 million refund under a U.S.-Swiss treaty that deals with the tax on dividends paid by U.S. corporations and received by foreign shareholders. Reversed the district court's ruling that the refund claim raised a nonjusticiable political question.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a husband and wife were not liable for a 2008 tax deficiency. The IRS had applied the substance‐over‐form doctrine to recharacterize various lawful tax‐avoiding transactions as tax‐generating events for the taxpayers, their adult sons, a family trust, and a family‐controlled corporation. Reversed the tax court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a tax shelter reflected an abusive sham. Affirmed the Tax Court's judgment and imposition of penalties.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a property owner could not proceed with a lawsuit seeking to recover tax overpayments. Affirmed a dismissal, in a case involving the determination of the real property's base-year value, a core metric for assessing property taxes in California.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a county tax assessor incorrectly determined the value, for property tax purposes, of a concessionaire's lease at San Francisco International Airport.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a taxpayer could not proceed with a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a voter-approved special property tax imposed by Los Angeles County. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an award of damages compensating an injured railroad worker for lost wages was subject to taxation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. The worker contended that the wages he recovered in this Federal Employers' Liability Act case should not be considered compensation subject to the payroll tax, which funds a self-sustaining retirement benefits system for railroad workers. Disagreeing, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the tax applied. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of a 7-2 Court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the Tax Court's decision that a decedent's estate had overstated the amount of a charitable deduction and thus received a large tax windfall. Also affirmed the imposition of an accuracy-related penalty.

(United States Supreme Court) - This case involved the State of Washington's tax on fuel importers who travel by public highway. The Yakama Nation contended that its 1855 treaty with the United States forbids that tax from being imposed upon fuel importers who are tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the tribe. Justice Breyer's plurality opinion was joined by only two other justices. Justices Gorsuch and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that homeowners were not disqualified from taking a tax break. California has a special tax provision benefitting homeowners over 55 years of age when they relocate to a replacement dwelling in the same county. Reversed the trial court.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Tax Court could order a refund of a taxpayer's income tax overpayment. The Tax Court had concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under the particular circumstances here, even though all parties agreed that the taxpayer had overpaid. Disagreeing, the Second Circuit reversed and remanded, characterizing the issue as one of first impression in any court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a plaintiff in a tax refund lawsuit was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Affirmed the ruling below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a plaintiff in a tax refund lawsuit was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Affirmed the ruling below.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the validity of a Treasury Department regulation. The provision's focus is that related business entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements. Reversed the judgment of the U.S. Tax Court.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that it is constitutional for San Francisco to impose a tax on drivers who park their cars in paid parking lots, even when the parking lot is operated by a state university.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The Tax Court improperly dismissed a case involving a man's application to the IRS for a whistleblower award because although his application was untimely the filing period was not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Amazon filed a petition challenging the IRS’s valuation of assets. The panel concluded that the definition of “intangible” does not include residual-business assets, and that the definition is limited to independently transferrable assets.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an administrative law action challenging the trial court's order that communications between the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and its general counsel, concerning whether to seek injunctive relief against Gerawan Farming, Inc. over complaints of unfair labor practices, must be disclosed under the Public Records Act, Government Code section 6251, the order is reversed where the Board's internal communications concerning its prosecution of Gerawan Farming are protected by attorney-client privilege.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for a writ of mandamus to force the district court to admit an attorney it had previously denied admission pro hac vice in the high-profile criminal trial of Cliven Bundy, the District Court's denial is affirmed where it did not abuse its discretion, as there are a litany of reasons for denying the attorney's pro hac vice status.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an action that implicates the public‘s interest in transparency and a public agency‘s interest in confidential communications with its legal counsel, the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning whether billing invoices are privileged is reversed where invoices for work in pending and active legal matters are so closely related to attorney-client communications that they implicate the heart of the privilege rule.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a putative class action challenging on First Amendment grounds New York's rules, regulations, and statutes prohibiting non‐attorneys from investing in law firms, alleging that the infusions of additional capital which the regulations now prevent would enable plaintiffs to improve the quality of the legal services that they offer and at the same time to reduce their fees, expanding their ability to serve needy clients, the district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiffs fail to allege the infringement of any cognizable constitutional right.

(California Court of Appeal) - Concluding that a defendant and their counsel unilaterally created an appeal-able order by making a motion in bad faith with the intention of creating a series of appeals that would forestall and damage the ability to proceed to trial and affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed 11 days before the scheduled trial on its merits and imposing monetary sanctions on the defense an counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the denial of a bail surety's motion to vacate the forfeiture of a bail bond in a case where a defendant charged with drug trafficking offenses fled the country and was barred from reentry on account of the pending charges because the trial court may not grant a motion to vacate the forfeiture on a ground not asserted and on evidence not presented until after the appearance period has expired.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denying a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging a trial judge's refusal to disqualify himself and for the attorney's removal as defense counsel in a case where the defense attorney engaged in a series of procedural delays in his defense of a man charged with two counts of rape that the court eventually held was denying the victim, defendant, and government their right to a speedy trial because the court correctly found that his motion to disqualify was untimely and the trial court had the authority to remove defense counsel to ensure adequate representation is provided and to avoid the substantial impairment of court proceedings... a rarely exercised authority that was held to be appropriate in this instance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed an order disqualifying a law firm from an insurance coverage case based on a newly hired associate's conflict of interest. While the disqualification ruling was pending on appeal, the discovery associate left the 500-plus attorney firm. Based on this development, the Fourth Appellate District reversed the disqualification order and returned the case to the trial court with directions to reweigh the competing disqualification considerations in light of Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co., 183 Cal. App. 4th 776 (2010).

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that plaintiff's counsel was not liable for breaching a provision in a settlement agreement requiring him to keep the settlement confidential. Upon being sued by the other settling party for speaking with the online news media about this product liability case, the plaintiff's counsel filed a SLAPP motion. On appeal, the Fourth Appellate District held that the settlement agreement's language purporting to impose a confidentiality obligation on the attorney was unenforceable in this case.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a dispute over legal fees should not have been submitted to arbitration because the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement was unenforceable. A law firm recovered its outstanding fees through arbitration after it was disqualified from a case due to a conflict of interest. On review, however, the California Supreme Court held that the matter should never have been arbitrated because the law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict rendered its agreement with its client, including the arbitration clause, unenforceable as against public policy. The high court also held that the conflicts waiver the client signed was ineffective.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order disqualifying an attorney from representing a client due to a conflict of interest. The attorney argued that there was no conflict, but the California Second Appellate District concluded otherwise. The panel stated that when an attorney represents more than one client, all of whom seek damages from a pool of money controlled by another party, the conflict is self-evident: there might not be enough money to satisfy each client's claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that there was no need to disqualify a city attorney's office from representing the city in a police officer's employment lawsuit. The officer argued that disqualification was necessary because she had been forced to answer questions about her lawsuit during a police internal affairs interview about another matter. Ordered the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying the city attorney's office.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a law firm was disqualified from representing a party in an unfair business practices case due to a conflict of interest. Reversed the denial of a disqualification motion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the statute of limitations for malicious prosecution claims against attorneys is one year. Accordingly, the present lawsuit was time-barred. Affirmed the decision below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a lawyer should not have been disqualified from representing a student-employee at a community college in a sexual harassment case. He did not violate California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct concerning communications with represented parties when he contacted another student-employee seeking a witness statement. Granted writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order disqualifying attorneys. The appeals court held that no evidence had been presented that Plaintiff's attorneys possessed confidential attorney-client privileged information relevant to the suit and that if there was a conflict other lawyers in the law firm could represent Plaintiff.