(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for manslaughter and possession of a weapon is affirmed where the trial court's supplemental instruction to the jury to continue deliberating, following the jury's return of a verdict which polling determined not to be unanimous, did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The majority of a merits panel affirmed a district court judgment declaring a Mississippi redistricting plan as violative of the Voting Rights Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court did not violate the confrontation clause when it prevented defendants in an armed robbery prosecution from cross examining government witnesses about the specific prison terms they avoided through their cooperation with the government.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The denial of money damages to a member of the Texas Mexican Mafia in a case alleging constitutional and civil rights violations arising from a drug bust was affirmed.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The bankruptcy court's rejection of a Texas Port Authority's claims of sovereign immunity and fraud in their gambit to invalidate a bankruptcy sale that extinguished an easement they held was affirmed because there was no Eleventh Amendment violation or basis to claim fraud.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of summary judgment to a County Veterans Assistance Commission was affirmed in a case where their superintendent was banned from the administration building after learning that he'd had a PTSD incident in which he threatened a police officer and kicked out the windows of a squad car.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. A prisoner suing under the 8th Amendment for the prison's failure to treat his nasal polyps claimed he didn't receive notice of a deposition until after he was called out of his cell to meet with one of the defendants in the suit. He refused to answer questions and said he was feeling ill. The lower court dismissed with prejudice as sanctions, but the court of appeals determined that although this is sometimes a proper sanction the lower court had acted too quickly.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A correctional facility was not entitled to qualified immunity in a putative class action suit by pretrial detainees that were denied running water and claimed Fourteenth Amendment violations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the case of a man who alleged a constitutional violation related to his injuries while in custody, the dismissal of all federal claims for failure to state a claim affirmed, as was the decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a Texas law claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant appealed from multiple convictions for robbery. He challenged the trial court’s admission of police interrogation statements, text exchange with his mother, and books and documents found in his car. The appeals court found that the police interrogation was properly admitted, but the text messages and the books and documents were not. This error by the trial court was prejudicial and therefore required reversal and remand.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A local ordinance requiring residential property owners to get a license or hired a licensed contractor to make repairs didn't violate the commerce clause. It didn't distinguish between in and out of state owners and imposed no burden on interstate commerce.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A pork farmer's suit alleging that the government unlawfully permitted funds for promoting the pork industry to be used for lobbying instead lacked constitutional standing. There was no evidence of misuse of funds that resulted in an injury in fact.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Injunctions against the state preventing it from implementing a plan to purge voter rolls based on third party information rather than directly contacting voters was affirmed because plaintiff organizations established standing and the decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A preliminary injunction against enforcement of state laws requiring parental notification in the case of pregnant unemancipated minors seeking abortions was upheld.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A conservation and reclamation district regulating groundwater was not subject to the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause because they are a special purpose unit of the government. Its apportionment scheme had a rational basis.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A magistrate's dual role as generator and administrator of court fees creates a conflict of interest when they set bail.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action challenging NCAA rules prohibiting student-athletes from being paid for the use of their names, images, and likenesses, the district court's judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the NCAA's rules are not exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, and are subject to the Rule of Reason; and 2) the district court's permanent injunction ordering the NCAA to allow members schools to pay students up to $5,000 a year in deferred compensation was erroneous.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an class action challenging the NFL's ticketing practices during Super Bowl XLVIII (2014) under a provision of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. section 56:8-35.1, the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed in part and vacated in part where the named plaintiffs failed to allege the elements of constitutional standing required under Article III.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of the alleged improper use of deflated footballs by professional football athlete Tom Brady, the District Court's vacation of the NFL Commissioner's award confirming the discipline of Brady, based upon the court's finding of fundamental unfairness and lack of notice, is reversed where: 1) the Commissioner properly exercised his broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement; and 2) his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action arising out of injuries plaintiff sustained during a high school football game, alleging ambulance crew was grossly negligent in not properly assessing plaintiff's condition and immediately transporting him to the hospital in the standby ambulance, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to ambulance service provider defendant is affirmed where the court did not err in finding that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding causation.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case involving helmets worn by professional football players the manufacturers of the helmets were being sued by multiple parties, so the manufacturer sued their insurers for indemnity. The insurers wanted to continue in extended discovery and demanded logs of documents withheld during prior discovery, but the court held that a stay of discover is appropriate, while the manufacturer must also provide privilege logs, reversing the trial court's decision as to the stay and affirming its order as to the privilege logs.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of an action brought under diversity jurisdiction by the LA Lakers against an insurer when it denied coverage and declined to defend them in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because the court agreed that the lawsuit was an invasion of privacy suit that was specifically excluded from coverage.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in the case of a student football player who took some hard hits and ended up diagnosed with traumatic brain injury because the coach was entitled to qualified immunity and there wasn't enough evidence to warrant a jury trail against the town.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's dismissal of a second amended complaint in a lawsuit alleging defamation and deceit related to parents' complaints about a baseball team coach because the grievance, filed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, failed to satisfy the claim filing requirements of the Government Claims Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversing a district court determination that a man complaining that the NFL's policies relating to the sale of SuperBowl tickets violated New Jersey law lacked subject matter jurisdiction and deferring action on the merits of the appeal pending a decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on a petition for certification of questions of state law, retaining jurisdiction over the appeal pending resolution of the certification.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of the North American Soccer League's motion for preliminary injunction seeking Division II designation pending the resolution of its antitrust case against the United States Soccer Federation because they had failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed the dismissal of a suit filed by a student athlete volleyball player against a community college after she was injured during a tournament game when she dove into the sand and her knee struck a rock. The community college argued that it was protected by an immunity covering field trips and excursions, as set forth in section 55220 of title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. Rejecting this argument, the Fourth Appellate District held that this provision did not apply to an injury suffered by a member of a visiting team during an intercollegiate athletic event. The panel therefore reversed an order granting a demurrer and remanded.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed on summary judgment that a YMCA was not liable for negligence in the death of a man who died of sudden cardiac arrest after playing soccer on a YMCA-owned field that was rented to a nonmember league. Held that the YMCA had no common-law duty of care to provide hands-on usage of an automatic external defibrillator on the facts here.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - In a government contracts dispute alleging the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the Court of Appeals judgment overturning the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants demurrer, is reversed where plaintiffs' allegations -- that they had submitted the second lowest bids on several contracts awarded to defendant, and that their bids would have been accepted but for defendant's wrongful conduct during the bidding process -- are insufficient because: 1) public works contracts are a unique species of commercial dealings; 2) in the contracts at issue here, the public entities retained broad discretion to reject all bids; 3) the bids were sealed, and there were no postsubmission negotiations; 4) in awarding the contracts, the public entities could give no preference to any bidder based on past dealings, and were required to accept the lowest responsible bid; and 5) in these highly regulated circumstances, plaintiffs had 'at most a hope for an economic relationship and a desire for future benefit.' Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case involving an airport lease and operating agreement, brought by a company alleging that the city had a flawed bidding process, the trial court's denial of plaintiff's leave to amend its petition and complaint is affirmed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denying the petition for review of the award of disability benefits under the Defense Base Act and the application of a judicially-created 'zone of special danger' doctrine to a local national injured while employed by a government contractor overseas.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the remand of a case involving a dispute between a government contractor and its subcontractor because the party seeking to remove to federal court filed an untimely notice to remove and had waived its right to remove by engaging in substantive defensive action in state court prior to filing a notice of removal by filing counterclaims in state court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing an order sustaining a city's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing a complaint to the extent that the order denied the plaintiff leave to amend in an action relating to an agreement between an energy company and a city whose terms may have violated the California Constitution because a quasi-contractual restitution claim would be permitted even if the Payments Clause at issue is unconstitutional.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's denial of a writ petition and declaratory and injunctive relief in the case of a city project because the trial court's dismantling of agreements entered into by an earlier administration and agency unconstitutionally impaired a private developer's contractual rights.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denying the petition for mandamus by an insurer that had paid millions on an Employee Theft Insurance policy when the insured company was found to have engaged in corrupt activities such as obtaining bribes and kickbacks from subcontractors to a government contract it held because, even if they had overcome various procedural obstacles, the company's criminal conduct and, by extension, that of the insurer, precluded them from obtaining restitution from an implicated employee, but vacating and remanding an order dismissing the insurer's petition in the employee's forfeiture proceeding because the district court failed to determine whether the company's unclean hands kept it from an equitable remedy.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dismissing for lack of jurisdiction because the Contract Disputes Act did not provide jurisdiction in a case involving a contract with the Army to establish and operate supply chain during Iraq's reconstruction and that the Board lacked jurisdiction under its charter and partially dismissing because the decision was not made pursuant under the CDA, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In this insurance law claim a health insurer contends that the US failed to satisfy its payment obligation under a federal health insurance pool program. The Court of Federal Claims entered judgement for the insurer. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment stating that Congress suspended the governments obligation and that subsequent regulation did not create a contract promising full payment.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a False Claims Act lawsuit had to be dismissed because it was not the first-filed case accusing the defendant pharmaceutical company of certain improper Medicare and Medicaid billing practices. The plaintiff (relator) argued that his action should be allowed to proceed because the earlier action was no longer pending. Disagreeing, the Second Circuit held that a violation of the first‐to‐file bar, which prohibits a person from bringing a related qui tam action when one is already pending, cannot be remedied by amending or supplementing the complaint. The panel reversed and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an attorney fee award to a government contractor that defeated a municipality's claim brought under the California False Claims Act, even though the contractor did not prevail in the action as a whole.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the prevailing wage law applied here because the contractors (belt sorters at county recycling facilities) were engaged in public work. On a separate issue, addressed the statutory remedy for improperly shortening their meal periods by three to five minutes.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government could not constitutionally deny funding to fight HIV/AIDS abroad based on a foreign organization's failure to adopt a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Affirmed the issuance of a permanent injunction on First Amendment grounds. The government had been interpreting a related 2013 Supreme Court decision narrowly.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a labor union's claim that a municipality violated a law concerning contract bidding when it hired a new private company to operate its municipal bus system. Reversed a dismissal and remanded, in this case involving a statutory bidding preference tied to labor rights.