(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a company's suit under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) to vacate or modify the arbitration award against it, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the union is affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by interpreting the CBA in a way that allowed the company to be found liable for a breach; 2) the arbitrator did not exceed the scope of his authority to decide a representational issue in this case because the arbitrator's successor decision was permissible in furtherance of his interpretation of the CBA; 3) the award's remedy does not violate public policy; and 4) the arbitrator did not dispense his own brand of industrial justice.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an en banc review of the Court of Federal Claims ruling against the government in a suit on behalf of shareholders of a failing bank that merged with a solvent bank, alleging that the government breached its contracts with the acquiring bank, jurisdiction was properly exercised by the Court of Federal Claims, as; 1) when a government agency is asserted to have breached an express or implied contract that it entered on behalf of the United States, there is Tucker Act jurisdiction of the cause unless such jurisdiction was explicitly withheld or withdrawn by statute, and 2) the jurisdictional foundation of the Tucker Act is not limited by the appropriation status of the agency's funds or the source of funds by which any judgment may be paid.

(United States Second Circuit) - In antitrust dispute arising from a action by plaintiff seeking to prevent defendant-healthcare providers from merging, summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where the district court's conclusion, that the market definition the plaintiff alleged as the basis of its claims is legally deficient, is a discretionary prerogative devoid of abuse.

(United States First Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of a merger agreement in which one party agreed to indemnify the other against a purely hypothetical tax loss, involving the issue of whether the prepayments and credits, and resulting tax refunds, affect the tax indemnification obligation of the sellers, the District Court's judgment in favor of sellers is vacated and remanded for further proceedings where; 1) the indemnification provision is ambiguous as to how the tax refunds affect the indemnification obligation of the sellers; and 2) the parties' arguments about the purpose and negotiating history of the provision cannot be resolved without the aid of a fact-finder.

(United States Third Circuit) - Held that a company that entered into an unconsummated merger agreement was not entitled to payment of a $275 million termination fee. The proposed merger had been approved by a bankruptcy court because one of the parties was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Third Circuit held that the bankruptcy court did not err in narrowing the circumstances under which the termination fee would be triggered, resulting ultimately in no fee being paid.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed summary judgment in favor of two drug store chains in a dispute with a shopping mall over common area maintenance fees. The case raised questions about real property rights and reverse triangular mergers.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a dispute that arose out of the sale of a manufacturing plant, held that the district judge was correct to withhold any remedy that would transfer the value of certain promissory notes from the secured lenders to the seller. Affirmed a judgment after a bench trial.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment after trial in a contractual dispute between two industrial supply companies. The case involved the alleged breach of their asset purchase agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Upheld an arbitration award in a business dispute involving one company's sale of certain assets to another. Affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award.

Latido Music, The Premiere 24-hour Digital Television Network Dedicated To Latin Music, Has Announced The Formation Of Its Advisory Board

Inspired By The Events Of Los Angeles Summer 1969 Emotional Debris Introduces 2 Catchy Rock Records In Line With Quentin Tarantino's New Epic 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood'

The Second Track From His Third Collection Of Songs Recorded In Some Of His Favourite Studios Around The World

Each Playlist Is Categorized By GENRE So You Can Easily Contact The Curators

Fresh Off Their GRAMMY Nomination For Their CD, Teach Me Thy Statutes,the PaTRAM Institute Will Record Their Next CD In Saratov, Russia This August.

NJ Rock Band Harvest Falls Debuts Video, Single, Charity Drive For New Song "MOMENT OF CONSEQUENCE"

MarilynMusic Has Just Released 18 New Songs!

ProgStock Festival Was Founded To Give Artists And Fans In The Genre Of Progressive Rock A Place To Play

The 'Rise Above - ON TOUR' Marketing Program Is An Innovative, Unique And Low Cost Opportunity To Place Your Local Performance In Front Of Committed Music Fans And Store Staff Across All Your Markets

Vancouver-based Singer-songwriter And Recording Artist Nat Jay Releases Electro Pop Song "Sleep"

One Of The First Collaborations Between Major Artists From India And The West

Lemon Slice Records Has Released Speakeasy, The New Album By Luke & The Belleville, A Masterly Integration Between The Swing Of The 1930s And The Most Modern Rhythms And Sounds Of Electronic Music.

NJ Rock Band Triple Addiction Scores A Guitar Endorsement And Books Some Big Shows.

Rising Country Artist, Stephanie Ryann, Has Released Her First Music Video For The Song "Whiskey Regret" Off Of Her Debut, Self-titled EP To Commemorate The Anniversary Of Its Release Last October

(United States DC Circuit) - Revived claims that the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's woefully inadequate cybersecurity practices enabled hackers to steal personal data about millions of past and present federal employees. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part, in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and others arising out of a 2014 cyberattack.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a former deputy constable may not proceed with his whistleblower retaliation and equal-protection claims. Some were barred by res judicata and others by qualified immunity. Affirmed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed as modified. Defendant failed to comply with an administrative order for various violations of county codes on his property. County filed suit and was awarded penalties, costs and attorney fees, but at a lower rate than amount ordered by administrative court. Appeals court modified assessment of penalties to the higher rate.

(United States DC Circuit) - Remanded for dismissal. The Electronic Privacy Information Center sued following a US Department of Commerce announcement that citizenship would be among the questions included in the 2020 census. EPIC sought to enjoin the question because they claim their members were entitled to a Privacy Impact Assessment. However, EPIC lacked standing to proceed with the suit.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition for review denied. The EPA did not act contrary to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in adopting a Transfer-Based Exclusion because hazardous materials are not necessarily "discarded" when they are transferred from a generator to a reclaimer along with payment. The policy was not arbitrary or capricious.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed trial court’s judgment and order denying Plaintiff’s motion for new trial. Defendants were tenants of a commercial property that was subject to eminent domain. When the court for the eminent domain action, awarded Defendants for their loss, Plaintiff filed suit to recover Defendant’s eminent domain award. The trial court held that when a business owner’s property is taken by eminent domain their compensation is separate and apart from property owners interests.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. An organization of wireless providers appealed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in their challenge of a Berkeley ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to warn potential buyers that carrying a phone could cause them to exceed FCC guidelines for exposure to radio-frequency radiation.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacate and dismiss. Appeal from the denial of a qualified immunity for the city attorney in a Section 1983 suit. Appeals court found Plaintiff has no standing to pursue the claim in federal court.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed and Remanded. Plaintiff sued seeking to expand its primary runway. The district court ruled that Plaintiff lacked standing to invalidate a Connecticut statute prohibiting the expansion, but even if it had standing the Federal Aviation Act did not preempt the statute. The appeals court disagreed and reversed and remanded for an entry of judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. The proper scope of judicial review of a school district’s decision is an independent judicial review. Such a review requires a hearing and making specific factual findings. The appeals court remanded for reconsideration of the writ petition under correct standards.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed and remanded. The Government Claims Act immunity for public entities is an affirmative defense that can be waived or forfeited if not timely raised.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed juvenile court order that refused to allow mother to testify or call witnesses because her counsel had not filed a joint trial statement as required by a local rule. Appeals court ruled local rule was invalid.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a citizen group, sued Defendant, a city, claiming the city violated zoning law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by approving a certain development. The trial court found the development consistent with CEQA and denied Plaintiff’s writ of mandate petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued to prevent Defendant from violating city zoning laws to construct a solar energy project. Defendant claimed an exemption under Gov. Code, section 53091 and 53096. Court found that exemption does not apply and that there was no finding that no feasible alternative was available.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff brought a petition for writ of mandate claiming the fee charged by Defendant, County of Alameda, for copies of official records violated Government Code section 27366. Trial court granted petition and issued a preliminary injunction against Defendant and awarded attorney fees to Plaintiff. Appeals court found that the County did not abuse its discretion in determining the fee it charged or that section 27366 was violated.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. District court granted summary judgment to Defendant police department against Plaintiff’s claim of civil rights violations for seizure of firearms from residence and failure to return them.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The trial court granted City's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff sued City for injuries from tripping and falling over a defective sidewalk. The trial court ruled that the defect was trivial as a matter of law.

(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.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Granted. The motion to transfer a lawsuit involving the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to the Tenth Circuit was granted because appeals of some agency rulings must be filed in only one court of appeals, typically the DC Circuit.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs are the parents of three girls who were killed by a speeding motorist while they crossed the street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiff brought an action against the City of Santa Ana claiming that the crosswalk qualified as a dangerous condition on public property. The appeals court did not find a dangerous condition or any peculiar condition that would trigger an obligation by the City.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The court found that Senate Bill No. 1107 directly conflicts with Political Reform Act of 1974 and does not further the purposes of the Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued Defendant for a slip and fall accident in the BART station on the theory that the train operator owed a heightened duty of care under Civil Code section 2100. The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds that Defendant had no liability for accidents that did not occur on the train. The appeals court agreed also holding that section 2100 does not apply to minor commonplace hazards in a train station.

(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.