(United States Third Circuit) - Denying a petition to review an FCC order allowing the limitation of bidding credits available to 'designated entities' in the bidding process for electromagnetic spectrum licenses since the decision was not arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to the law.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of Bill Cosby's motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds in a case alleging defamation when the New York Daily News published an article in which the plaintiff accused him of rape and a purportedly confidential letter drafted by Cosby's attorney in response was released to news outlets and websites worldwide.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Ordering the district court to vacate orders prohibiting the petitioner from expressing their views on litigation or republishing public documents over social media platforms, and requiring them to post a disclaimer prohibiting comment on the litigation because this amounted to prior restraint on their First Amendment rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's ruling that Yelp lacked standing to assert the First Amendment rights of an anonymous reviewer whose identity was sought in connection with a defamation claim, finding no error in the determination that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the comments made by this person were defamatory, and concluding that this finding was sufficient to support the court order compelling the production of subpeonaed documents, for which reason the petition for writ of mandate was denied, but also finding the opposition to the motion to compel was substantially justified and reversing the order of sanctions against Yelp.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal for failure to state a claim allegations of First Amendment violations by the City of New York, but reversing as to Manhattan Community Access Corporation and its employees because public access TV channels are a public forum and the corporation and its employees were state actors when they fired workers who produced segments critical of the corporation.

(California Court of Appeal) - Vacating a district court's denial of a motion for attorney fees and remanding for consideration under the appropriate legal and evidentiary standards in a Lanham Act case in a suit relating to internet domain registry services because the district court required clear and convincing evidence of an exceptional case, rather than the Act's preponderance of the evidence standard.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacating a district court's denial of a motion for attorney fees and remanding for consideration under the appropriate legal and evidentiary standards in a Lanham Act case in a suit relating to internet domain registry services because the district court required clear and convincing evidence of an exceptional case, rather than the Act's preponderance of the evidence standard.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order denying attorney's fees to a newspaper that had been forced to litigate over its request for public records. The newspaper argued that it was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under the California Public Records Act. However, the Third Appellate District disagreed, holding that the Act does not allow for an award of attorney fees when the requester litigates against an officer of a public agency in a mandamus action that the officer initiated to keep the public agency from disclosing records it agreed to disclose.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the district court should have abstained from exercising jurisdiction over a lawsuit contending that the First Amendment required the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to release newly filed complaints to the press at the moment of receipt by her office -- not after processing. Ordered the case dismissed without prejudice.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded a claim that a cable television operator refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Also, the section 1981 claim was not barred by the First Amendment. On interlocutory appeal, affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an en banc opinion, addressed the constitutionality of a San Francisco ordinance that requires health warnings to be included in advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages. Industry groups challenged the ordinance, contending that it violates freedom of commercial speech. Finding this argument persuasive, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction against the ordinance.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded that a cable television operator unlawfully refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss, on interlocutory appeal.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until the Copyright Office registers the copyright. The plaintiff, a news organization that sued a news website for infringement, argued that the relevant date should be when the Copyright Office receives a completed application for registration, even if the Register of Copyrights has not yet acted on that application. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a newspaper's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted to block a libel suit. The plaintiffs failed to make a prima-facie showing that statements regarding them in a series of articles about campaign contributions were false. Reversed in relevant part.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a media company was not a "consumer reporting agency" subject to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. A job applicant alleged that the company's subscription‐based online research platform erroneously showed that he had been previously convicted of theft. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the media company.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private entity operating public access cable TV channels was not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. The producers of a controversial documentary film contended that the nonprofit corporation running the public access channels was a state actor because it was exercising a function traditionally exclusively reserved to the State, and therefore was subject to suit for violating their free speech rights. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Palin appeals the dismissal of her defamation complaint against The New York Times for failure to state a claim. Finding the district court erred in relying on facts outside the proceedings, the case is remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action for breach of an indemnity agreement, the trial court's grant of summary judgment requiring defendant to pay plaintiff approximately $6.07 million pursuant to the indemnity agreement is affirmed where although the signatory did not have actual authority to execute the indemnity agreement on defendant's behalf, in these circumstances, the person's signature binds defendant pursuant to former Corporations Code section 17157(d) (now section 17703.01(d)), provided that the other party to the agreement does not have actual knowledge of the person's lack of authority to execute the agreement on behalf of defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action against two insurance companies, brought by a plaintiff-insured who was denied coverage under a D&O policy because he was convicted of securities fraud, the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrer and dismissing the complaint is: 1) affirmed in part where the AXIS demurrer was properly sustained because AXIS was a stranger to the HCC policy and owed no duties connected with it; but 2) reversed in part where the HCC demurrer was improperly sustained because when a policy expressly provides coverage for litigation expenses on appeal, an exclusion requiring repayment to the insurer upon a 'final determination' of the insured's culpability applies only after the insured's direct appeals have been exhausted.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a corporate governance action, arising from plaintiff corporation's suit over the exercise of its right to repurchase shares of its stock, given to defendant under a stock incentive plan for outside directors on its board, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is: 1) reversed because plaintiff's conversion claim could be based on either ownership or the right to possession at the time of conversion; and 2) affirmed because plaintiff's fraud claims were not timely under either the discovery rule or relation back doctrine, and thus barred by the statute of limitations.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition challenging a notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment, the Tax Court’s dismissal, for lack of jurisdiction, is affirmed where: 1) because plaintiff contended that his business entity was a small partnership not subject to the audit procedures under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), entities that are disregarded for federal tax purposes may nevertheless constitute pass-thru partners under 26 U.S.C. section 6231(a)(9), such that the small-partnership exception under section 6231 does not apply and the partnership is therefore subject to the TEFRA audit procedures; 2) resolution of this question iss inextricably intertwined with the contention that plaintiff had standing to file a petition for readjustment of partnership items on behalf of his purported small partnership; and 3) as to standing, because a party other than plaintiff's entity's tax matters partner filed a petition for readjustment of partnership items after the partnership had timely done the same, the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. section 6226.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming the Tax Court's application of the Ilfield doctrine in holding that the double deduction for losses incurred by the subsidiary of a company was improper and disallowing $199 million of those losses.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming bankruptcy court and district court rulings that a transaction involving the debt-financed purchase of a family owned leather manufacturer was not a fraudulent conveyance and did not amount to a violation of the fiduciary duties of the company's directors because the factual determinations were not clearly erroneous and supported the court's conclusions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Issuing a peremptory writ of mandate and vacating the superior court's refusal to apply the Braddock rule, requiring that the court assess demand futility as to the board in place when an amended complaint is filed in a corporate action, because the rule is consistent with relevant aspects of California law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate and directing the superior court to modify an order sustaining real parties' demurrer to a plaintiff's cause of action and entering a new order overruling a portion of the demurrer because the lower court improperly analyzed the claim of conversion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the dismissal of a complaint brought by a company formed by a hairdresser who attempted to take advantage of changes in the law relating to whether cancelled companies can pursue litigation rather than litigate in a forthcoming manner, creating a situation where they were technically entitled to proceed but allowing them to do so would be unfair.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's ruling holding a man liable for a fraudulent scheme involving the unauthorized transmission of DIRECTV's television programming and the entry of a judgment for over two million dollars and permitting the reverse veil piercing of three limited liability companies in order to satisfy the judgment.

(California Court of Appeal) - Construing the appeal of a trial court order requiring a party whose ownership interests were contested to be a petition for writ of mandate and holding that partition statutes don't allow a court to order the manner of a property's partition before determining the ownership interests of the property at stake, reversing the court's order.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the US Court of Federal Claims dismissal of a company's action seeking refunds for losses and deductions its predecessor company allegedly should have received for certain intangible assets acquired from the federal government in the 1980s because the court's findings that the company failed to establish with a reasonable degree of certainty the cost basis in each of the assets at issue was not clearly erroneous.

(United States Supreme Court) - The US Supreme Court held that American Express (Amex) anti-steering provisions, in its agreement with merchants to prohibit merchants who take Amex cards from discouraging customers from using their cards in order for the merchant to avoid paying Amex a fee, do not violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld an Internal Revenue Service regulation addressing the tax treatment of employee stock options. In a ruling that has tax implications for multinational companies especially, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Tax Court erred in striking down a regulation, 26 C.F.R. section 1.482-7A(d)(2), which says that related entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements and thus avoid an IRS adjustment. The panel held that the regulation was entitled to Chevron deference.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that shareholders were liable for taxes on proceeds from the sale of a close corporation. The Internal Revenue Service sued the shareholders, claiming they violated Arizona's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act by engaging in a complex series of stock and asset transactions that resulted in creating a debtor company unable to pay the tax bill. Agreeing with the IRS's position, the Ninth Circuit reversed a decision of the Tax Court and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the IRS.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for writ of mandate denied in a case where The People of California filed suit to enjoin the plaintiff from noncompliance with the Unfair Competition law. Plaintiff sought the writ of mandate after its motion to remove the action from Riverside County was denied by the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case in which a minority shareholder sued a majority shareholder, reversed and remanded with directions to reinstitute a special proceeding under Corporations Code section 2000.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an arbitration action, arising from a dispute between plaintiff electricity producer and defendant utility over which party bears the cost of complying with laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the trial court's vacating of the arbitration award to PG&E is reversed where the question of contact interpretation was ripe for arbitration and plaintiff failed to show sufficient cause for postponing the arbitration process.

(United States First Circuit) - In a public utilities class action, contending that defendant power company (PREPA)'s subsidized municipalities' private use of power in violation of Puerto Rico law, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where plaintiffs' lack of a valid protected interest in the electricity consumed by the municipalities or the funds paid to PREPA deprive them of standing to bring takings or due process claims.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an action concerning who pays for storm drains, the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the Regional Water Quality Control Board for Los Angeles's permit conditions are mandated by federal law and that storm drain systems operators are not entitled to state reimbursement under Article XIII B, section 6, subd. (a) of the California Constitution is reversed where the permit conditions are not imposed by any federal law or regulatory system.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for failing to comply with the the Public Records Act (PRA), Government Code sections 6250-6276.48, the petition is granted where Public Utilities Code section 1759 bars the superior court from exercising jurisdiction over such a lawsuit.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In consolidated petitions for review brought by various power companies of FERC determinations that various energy companies committed tariff violations in California during the summer of 2000, the FERC determinations are affirmed where: 1) it did not arbitrarily and capriciously, or abuse its discretion in finding that electric sellers Shell Energy North America, LP, MPS Merchant Services, Inc., and Illinova Corporation violated the Cal-ISO tariff and Market Monitoring and Information Protocol; 2) FERC's Summer Period determinations regarding APX, Inc., and BP EnergyCo. were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; and 3) because FERC's remedial order is not final, the panel lacked appellate jurisdiction over it.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a brought suit against the U.S. claiming that two federal government agencies selling electricity over-charged appellants for electricity, the Federal Claims Court dismissal for lack of standing is affirmed where plaintiffs lack privity of contract or any other relationship with the government that would confer standing.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case in which the Court of Appeals previously dismissed the appeal of plaintiffs from a nonappealable stipulated judgment pursuant to a settlement agreement, and the parties entered into an amended stipulated judgment, the trial court's decision is reversed where: 1) the amended stipulated judgment is final and appealable and the court's opinion, with respect to the trespass and nuisance claims only, is not advisory; 2) on the merits, plaintiffs were legally entitled to present evidence of plaintiff's emotional distress on their claims for trespass and nuisance as annoyance and discomfort damages recoverable for such torts; and 3) the trial court excluded evidence of emotional distress damages in their entirety.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for review brought by various entities challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)'s calculation of certain refunds arising out of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001, the petition is: 1) granted in part where FERC acted arbitrarily or capriciously in allocating the refund only to net buyers and not to all market participants; and 2) denied in part as to the question of whether refunds should be netted hourly or a cross the entire refund period where FERC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its construction of tariffs.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an antitrust lawsuit alleging a power district had attempted to entrench its monopoly by setting prices that disfavored solar-power providers, defendant's appeal of the district court order denying its motion to dismiss the suit based on the state-action immunity doctrine, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the collateral order doctrine does not allow an immediate appeal of an order denying a dismissal motion based on state-action immunity.

(United States First Circuit) - In a judgment enforcement action, the district court's order approving a sale recommended by the receiver as part of wrapping of a fifteen year case stemming from a $58 million judgment is affirmed where the sale appeal is not equitably moot and the district court's orders approving the sale details was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States First Circuit) - In an antitrust action, alleging that defendant's petitioning of the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board, government officials and tribunals, and commonwealth and federal courts to prevent plaintiff's application to provide internet protocol television service violated the Sherman Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the facts of the case don't subject defendant to the sham exception of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protecting the right to petition the government.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of an action by a private energy company against the utility companies because the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act does not provide a private right of action against utility companies and affirming the denial of a motion for additional relief against various Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities officials because the court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denying a petition for review by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation seeking to vacate two orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorizing a company to construct a natural gas pipeline in New York and determining that the Department waived its authority to provide a water quality certification for the pipeline project under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the judgment and remanding the case of a woman whose home had a distressing electric charge, particularly in the shower, as the result of a power plant next door because the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence relating to stray voltage incidents involving prior owners and tenants and that the admission of that evidence was prejudicial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the denial of an administrative writ and declaratory relief in the case of a Pacific Gas and Electric Company lease extension on two long term leases on land used for water intake and discharge for a nuclear power plant because the lease replacement was subject to the existing facilities categorical exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act's environmental impact report requirement and the unusual circumstances exception did not apply.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed in part a ruling addressing how much money Los Angeles County may tax Time Warner Cable. The plaintiff in this lawsuit, Time Warner, argued that the county government was taxing it more than the law allowed for its use of public rights-of-way. On appeal, the Second Appellate District held that the county was not required to value the possessory interests based only on five percent of cable television revenue. In all other respects the panel affirmed the trial court's judgment.