(United States Third Circuit) - In an action to enjoin enforcement of an attorney-conduct guideline that bans advertising with quotations from judicial opinions unless the opinions appear in full, summary judgment in favor of defendant, the Supreme Court of New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising, is reversed and remanded, where: 1) plaintiff published on his law firm's website complimentary remarks about him by judges in separate judicial opinions; and 2) the attorney-conduct guideline adopted by the Supreme Court of New Jersey is an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Removal of petitioner Wrocklage from his position as Customs and Border Protection Officer at defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is vacated and remanded, where the charges of unauthorized disclosure and lack of candor are not supported by substantial evidence.

(United States Supreme Court) - Disciplinary sanctions imposed by the state bar, pursuant to Cannon 7(C)(1), on a candidate for judicial office, who mailed and posted online a letter soliciting financial contributions for her campaign, are affirmed over a First Amendment challenge, where Cannon 7(C)(1) is narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interest.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a pain management physician did not have to produce the medical records of five of his patients pursuant to a subpoena issued by an investigator with the Medical Board of California, because the board did not establish good cause for the subpoena. Reversed the decision below, in this case involving prescriptions for controlled substances.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an action arising out of the retention of policyholder information by former insurance agents for plaintiff, summary judgment dismissing both plaintiff's claims and defendants' counterclaims is affirmed where: 1) the policyholder information was readily available from another source, and thus did not qualify as a trade secret as a matter of law; 2) plaintiff effectively abandoned its breach of fiduciary duty claim on appeal because it failed to challenge the district court's determination that it could not prove damages on that claim; 3) the agents did not qualify as employees covered by ERISA as a matter of law; and 4) the agents pointed to no evidence showing that plaintiff's allegedly unfair trade practices resulted in an ascertainable loss.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - In an action by a company which provides security and consulting services to casino operators, seeking a declaratory judgment that an Indian tribal court lacked jurisdiction and an order compelling arbitration, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the tribal courts could exercise adjudicatory jurisdiction over the tribe's claims against plaintiff for trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion of tribal trade secrets. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the tribal court did not have jurisdiction under the second Montana exception over the tribe's claim for conversion of tribal funds.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. section 552, dispute arising from requests for Notices of Seizure of Infringing Merchandise pursuant to 19 C.F.R. section 133.21(c), judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and vacated in part where court properly held that plaintiff's requests fall within Exemption 4 but erred in finding that 19 C.F.R. section 103 fees had been invalidated.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's state law business tort claims is vacated and remanded, where the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims because: 1) defendant's allegedly inaccurate statements regarding its patent rights concerned conduct taking place entirely in Taiwan; 2) the use of a patented process outside the United States is not an act of patent infringement; and thus, 3) there is no prospect of a future U.S. infringement suit arising out of the Taiwan company's use of the parties' products in Taiwan, and accordingly no prospect of inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - The district court did not abuse its discretion in staying plaintiffs' action seeking declaratory relief that it was not committing violations asserted by defendants in an earlier filed state law action, pending the resolution of the earlier parallel state lawsuit filed by defendants, where plaintiffs had every opportunity to procure a federal forum by removing defendants' first filed state suit rather than by bringing a separate federal action in an entirely separate federal district.

(United States Second Circuit) - Defendant's convictions under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) and the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA) are affirmed, where: 1) on the EEA conviction, defendant fails to show that purported error in the pleading of the law's jurisdictional element affected his substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings; 2) on the NSPA conviction, defendant fails to show that the theft of his employer's computer code did not satisfy the law's "goods, wares, or merchandise" requirement because, although the code itself was intangible intellectual property, defendant stole it in the tangible form of thousands of sheets of paper; 3) defendant fails to establish any instructional error; and 4) defendant's claims of constructive amendment and prejudicial variance fail on the merits.

(California Court of Appeal) - In this malicious prosecution action brought by plaintiffs against defendant-attorneys, order granting defendants' anti-SLAPP motion and order granting defendant its attorney fees and costs are reversed, where: 1) the Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 is not the appropriate statute of limitations for a malicious prosecution action; and 2) plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence that they otherwise have a probability of prevailing.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Dismissing the appeal of a district court's denial of an application for writ of mandamus seeking to avoid the production of a report produced at the direction of counsel in a case involving the alleged theft of driverless vehicle technology where attorney-client and work-product privilege were claimed because alternative means of relief were available, the petitioner could not establish a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief, and the district court properly determined that privilege did not apply to the discovery document at issue.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in favor of defendant in a copyright case. Plaintiff compiled a listing of individual consumer names with their addresses and sought copyright protection. The District Court found in favor of the defendant and against the copyright claims. The 9th Circuit held that the compilation of names and addresses is copyrightable, but plaintiff had failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed. Affirmed as to the infringement claim for the defendant, but reversed as to the state law trade secret claim.

Swinging, climbing, and taking risks has always been in Ashton Jamieson’s nature. So his parents made the decision early on to enrol him in gymnastics.

They call it Sydney’s Little Portugal, but football fans in Petersham this morning are making a big noise after their team won the UEFA 2016 Cup in France.

WESTERN Sydney Wanderers’ newest recruit - Bruno Piñatares - has arrived from South America with a burning ambition “to win as many titles as possible”.

Eleven-year-old Max Fricker is following in the footsteps of his big brother Sam, and making a name for himself as a diver with a real future.

Australian hockey star Adam Imer will be pulling on the green-and-yellow of Brazil this August and is heading to the Olympic Games where his biggest challenge will be taking on the Aussies.

Sam Fricker only took up diving “seriously” three years’ ago, but he’s already a star of the sport.

FINDING the net for the Wanderers fulfilled one of teenage soccer star Ben Morrison’s dreams — but he has higher goals in his sights.

THE controversial ATO building proposed for the Gosford waterfront has received the green light, but not without major criticism of the city’s former council for failing to deliver a performing arts precinct.

THE WAITING is over for voters in the marginal seat of Robertson, with Liberal MP Lucy Wicks claiming victory three days after election day, despite an evident swing to Labor.

Weighing no more than a bag of sugar, Wendy the orphaned wallaby is a true survivor — all thanks to her tiny tail and an eagle-eyed motorist­.

A MARINE Rescue vessel which sank on its maiden voyage on the Central Coast was a potential death trap for its crew and community members, an expert says.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacate and remand. Plaintiff, a prisoner, brought suit against prison official alleging that they arranged another inmate to attack him and stood by while he was severely injured. District court granted summary judgment with prejudice to Defendant for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appeals court found that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but the proper disposition was dismissal without prejudice.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacate and order the unsealing of summary judgment record and remand. Intervenors, Dershowitz and the Miami Herald, appeal from an order denying motion to unseal filings in a defamation suit stemming from a suit brought as a result of the conviction of Jeffrey Epstein. Appeals court held the district court failed to conduct appropriate review when it ordered records sealed. Appeals court ordered the unsealing of summary judgment materials as there was no privacy interest sufficient to justify continued sealing. The remaining documents require additional review by the district court applying appropriate standards.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Distict court’s summary judgment that deceased BSNF employee was not acting within the scope of his employment when driving to work affirmed. Deceased was a BNSF railroad employee, but in court’s judgment no jury could reasonably find BSNF negligent in any way, so the question of work status need not be addressed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued for negligence and premises liability for an assault that injured him in the Defendant's parking lot. The trial court found that Plaintiff had not met his burden of showing foreseeability of violent criminal assaults. Therefore, Defendant did not have a legal duty to implement additional security measures to prevent possible third-party conduct.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff filed a petition for a workplace violence restraining order against Defendant using the mandatory Judicial Council form. The trial court granted the workplace violence restraining order. Appeals court reversed concluding that Defendant was not afforded the required notice under Code of Civil Procedure 527.8 and reversed the ruling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Vacated. Plaintiff, the heir of an employee who was killed in a work place accident, filed a complaint alleging that the employer did not have workers compensation insurance. The employer filed a demurrer and sought adjudication with the Workers Compensation Board. The trial court stayed the civil case to allow the WCAB to decide the issue. The Appeals court held that when a civil action and a workers’ compensation proceeding are concurrently pending, the tribunal first assuming jurisdiction should have exclusive jurisdiction. The trial court erred by staying the civil case and the WCAB erred by proceeding without deference to the trial court. Order staying civil case is vacated and WCAB proceedings stayed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff pled no contest to a felony charge of child abuse for injuries to his infant son, but filed this suit against Defendant, Fire Department, for the emergency medical aid that allegedly led to the death of his infant son. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion that was granted by the trial court on the grounds of government immunity. The appeals court held that government immunity applies to situations where fire fighters are supplying firefighting services, not emergency medical services.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a homeowner, attempted a mortgage loan modification with Defendant, but when Plaintiff fell behind in payments, Defendant foreclosed. Plaintiff sued for negligence. The trial court sustained Defendant’s demurrer on the grounds that no tort duty is owed on contracts. The appeals court held that a lender does not owe a borrower a duty to offer, consider, or approve a loan modification.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The magistrate judge and district court properly denied the claims of a group of fishermen to a portion of the punitive damages settlement granted to a class of claimants alleging harm as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill because the court was bound to precedent, the plain language of the settlement, and a deferential standard of review.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Walgreens was not responsible for third parties injured on the road by a customer of the pharmacy who was negligently given someone else's prescription. They did not owe a tort duty of care to third parties.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacating and remanding the Second Circuit's support of a motion to dismiss a complaint relating to allegations that Chinese sellers of Vitamin C were engaged in price and quantity fixing of exports to the US because although the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China averred that the alleged price fixing scheme was actually a pricing regime mandated by the Chinese Government the court was not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government's statements. No law or regulation had been cited and a foreign nation's laws must be proven as facts.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff appealed from a decision to deny his petition for discovery under 28 USC section 1782, which allows a party t petition for discovery for use in a foreign proceeding. Plaintiff sought certain materials to be used in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The district court held that under Intel Corp v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 US 241 that the material sought was irrelevant and would not be used by the EPO. The appellate court affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed an order which had allowed the plaintiff to subpoena documents from a U.S. law firm for use in litigation against Royal Dutch Shell in the Netherlands. The appeals court held that Shell's American counsel should not be compelled to deliver documents that would not be discoverable abroad and that were in counsel's hands solely because they were sent to the U.S. for the purpose of American litigation. The appeals court further determined that the district court abused its discretion under 28 U.S.C. section 1782 when it permitted the plaintiff to subpoena the documents.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a California superior court had jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding, in a case raising questions under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The mother had previously initiated a child custody proceeding in her home country of Belarus.

(United States DC Circuit) - Revived an American citizen's claim seeking damages from two foreign officials of the Democratic Republic of the Congo who allegedly subjected him to torture. Held that the Congolese officials did not qualify for foreign official immunity under the common law. Vacated a dismissal, in this lawsuit brought under the federal Torture Victim Protection Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Refused to quash service of a summons on a company in Hong Kong. The company contended that the service did not adhere to proper Hong Kong procedures and was invalid under international law. Disagreeing, the California Court of Appeal denied writ relief.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that four divorced men could not proceed with their lawsuit accusing Israeli government officials and others of misconduct in connection with their divorce proceedings and child support orders. Affirmed a dismissal based partly on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and partly on failure to state a claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an accused murderer's challenge to Mexico's request to extradite him went beyond the narrow role for courts in the extradition process. Affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that claimants whose family members were harmed in a terrorist attack may state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress even if the claimants were not present at the scene of the attack. The case involved District of Columbia tort law and terrorist bombings in East Africa.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that eleven American families could not revive their lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority and others for various terror attacks in Israel that killed or wounded the plaintiffs or their family members. The plaintiffs relied on the 2018 enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act, but the statute did not warrant the extraordinary remedy of recalling the mandate in this already completed case, which had been dismissed on procedural grounds.

(United States Supreme Court) - The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal's affirmation of the district court's holding that defendants' partnerships were properly disregarded as shams but that the valuation-misstatement penalty did not apply, is reversed, where: 1) the district court had jurisdiction to determine whether the partnerships' lack of economic substance could justify imposing a valuation-misstatement penalty on the partners; and 2) the penalty is applicable to tax underpayments resulting from the defendant-partners' participation in the COBRA tax shelter.

(United States Supreme Court) - The whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 contained in 18 U. S. C. section 1514A include employees of a public company's private contractors and subcontractors when they report covered forms of fraud.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's claims that he was unlawfully terminated from his employment in retaliation for protected activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is affirmed, where plaintiff failed to sufficiently establish that his alleged protected activities were a contributing factor to his termination.

(United States First Circuit) - The decision of the United States Tax Court holding petitioner liable, as the recipient of a fraudulent transfer from his former company, for the company's back taxes of over $4.9 million, plus interest of at least $8.7 million, is: 1) reversed in part and remanded, where the tax court calculated prejudgment interest under the wrong statute, which should have been determined in accord with Massachusetts law, and under Massachusetts law, no interest would have begun to accrue until the date of the Notice of Liability; but 2) affirmed in part, where petitioner's loans to his former company to pay petitioner's litigation expenses did not reduce the net amount transferred to him.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a suit brought by a shareholder of retailer-defendant, seeking to include its proposal in defendant's proxy materials for shareholder consideration, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff ordering the inclusion of the proposal into the proxy materials is reversed where the proposal, which goes to the heart of defendant's business, is excludable under the "ordinary business" exclusion of SEC Rule 14a-8(i)(7), 17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-8(i)(7).

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action against officers and directors of a company in which plaintiff invested, alleging false representations, following a default judgment for plaintiff, the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment on grounds that it did not have sufficient notice of punitive damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 435.115(f) and that it was entitled to mandatory relief under section 473(b), is affirmed where: 1) due process requires that when a plaintiff moves for discovery terminating sanctions and seeks punitive damages, a statement under section 425.111(f) must be served a reasonable time before obtaining those sanctions; and 2) notice must be sufficient to afford a defendant the opportunity to fairly appraise the full amount of damages sought by the time he or she needs to respond and oppose the motion.