(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 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) - 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.

(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.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate in a case where a group of pharmaceutical companies had been sued by the District Attorney under California's Unfair Competition Law for allegations that they had engaged in a scheme to keep generic versions of a prescription drug off the market, but the suit was based on conduct outside of the county where the DA served and allowing them to proceed with the suit without written consent would permit the DA to usurp the Attorney General's statewide authority and impermissibly bind other DAs, precluding them from pursuing their own relief.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of no interference-in-fact in a patent case involving the CRISPR-Cas9 system for the targeted cutting of DNA molecules. The Federal Circuit found no error in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's conclusion of no interference-in-fact, in this case pitting the Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and others against the University of California, the University of Vienna, and others.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the constitutionality of an Indiana law making it a felony to acquire, receive, sell or transfer fetal tissue. Indiana University sought an injunction barring enforcement of the statute, which impacts medical research. Reversing the district court, the Seventh Circuit held that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague, and also rejected the university's other constitutional arguments.

Commissioner Chairman Dan Camp of Pennsylvania’s Beaver County on Friday slammed Gov. Tom Wolf (D) over his order excluding the county from moving into the next phase of reopening.

Amnesty advocates are working overtime to portray illegal migrants as heroic essential workers in the national campaign to contain China's coronavirus.

President Donald Trump's re-election campaign blasted California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D-CA) executive order allowing registered voters in the state to vote by mail in the November election, calling it a "thinly-veiled political tactic" aimed at undermining election security. 

Jeff Haste, Pennsylvania's Dauphin County Board chairman, slammed Gov. Tom Wolf (D) in a letter on Friday for keeping a bulk of businesses closed, particularly in his county, and bluntly called on Wolf to “return our state to the people (as prescribed by our Constitution) and not run it as a dictatorship.”

Nearly three-fourths of U.S. adults say China bears responsibility for American coronavirus deaths, a Morning Consult tracker poll released Friday revealed.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Remanded for further findings as to whether a citizen group and six individuals had legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of Chicago's recently enacted Shared Housing Ordinance, which regulates home-sharing activities, including services offered by companies like Airbnb.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld a beach town's ordinance imposing restrictions on companies, such as Airbnb Inc., that host online platforms for short-term vacation rentals. The internet companies claimed that the ordinance impermissibly infringed their First Amendment rights or was preempted by federal law. Disagreeing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of their lawsuit seeking to enjoin the ordinance.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Revived a citizen's claim that a sheriff's office Facebook page unconstitutionally censored speech. She claimed that her controversial comments were deleted and she was banned from the site, in violation of her First Amendment rights. Vacated a dismissal in relevant part.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed the denial of class certification in a case involving tax refund claims filed by limited liability companies (LLCs) which sought refunds of a levy they had paid pursuant to a California tax statute that was later determined to be unconstitutional. When the district court denied the LLCs' motion for class certification on multiple grounds including predominance and superiority, they appealed. Agreeing with the LLCs that this case was suitable for treatment on a classwide basis, the First Appellate District reversed and remanded for certification of a class or classes consistent with its opinion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed decertification of a class of retired University of California employees who claimed they were denied promised health insurance benefits. The retirees, who had worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, appealed the trial court's ruling that decertified the class for lack of commonality. On appeal, the First Appellate District held that the trial court's decertification ruling had relied on erroneous legal standards.

(United States Second Circuit) - Rejected an objecting class member's challenge to the amount of attorney fees awarded to a law firm that represented the class in a shareholder lawsuit. Raising what the court described as a novel issue, the objector contended that the lodestar fee must be unenhanced because the action was initiated under a statute with a fee‐shifting provision.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The trial court and the court of appeals denied class action certification to Plaintiff who sought to bring an action against retailers who allegedly misled buyers about the size of an inflatable outdoor pool. The Supreme court concluded that the trial court erred in demanding evidence about the ascertainability requirement for class certification, holding that there is not an additional evidentiary burden that the courts below imposed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Minor league baseball players seeking class status in an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act appeal the denial of class certification in Arizona and Florida. The panel held certification is appropriate and consistent with “the great public policy” embodied by the FLSA.

The Multi-talented Recording Artist Is Up For Nominations With Her Album Hellucination And Singles “Save My Soul” And “Crazy (What You Make Me)”

The Multi-talented Recording Artist Is Up For Nominations With Her Album Hellucination And Singles “Save My Soul” And “Crazy (What You Make Me)”

The Music Artist Known As Donna Cristy Has Released Her Latest Single, “Lies Wit My Shake.”

“OfficialVybe Has Successfully Made A Deal With Roc Nation. He Will Release A New Single, “Party At Atlantis” This Year.”

(Supreme Court of California) - Upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires wireless phone service companies to obtain permits and conform with aesthetic guidelines when installing lines and equipment on utility poles. The companies sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. However, the California Supreme Court was not persuaded by the companies' arguments.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The trial court and the court of appeals denied class action certification to Plaintiff who sought to bring an action against retailers who allegedly misled buyers about the size of an inflatable outdoor pool. The Supreme court concluded that the trial court erred in demanding evidence about the ascertainability requirement for class certification, holding that there is not an additional evidentiary burden that the courts below imposed.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a dispute involving an agreement to purchase power from a wind turbine farm was outside the scope of the parties' arbitration clause. Reversed an order compelling arbitration, in this lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the meaning of a contractual provision.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a dispute between a city and an engineering firm belonged in state court rather than federal court. Affirmed a remand order based on language in the parties' venue selection agreement.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction company's surety (an insurance company) may not augment its contractual indemnification rights with the ancient doctrine of quia timet -- equitable protection from probable future harm. The construction company allegedly had gone belly up on a government project. Affirmed summary judgment against the surety's claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed, where the district court granted summary judgment in favor of a tenured professor who was dismissed for cause. The University’s use of an informal mediator on the hearing committee did not violate the procedural requirements of the employment contract.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer was not liable for contractual and statutory violations arising from the denial of a commercial property insurance claim. The suit was untimely because re-investigation by the insurer did not toll the accrual of the cause of action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. All insurance claims were properly denied because while the insured gave timely notice of later claims they failed to give notice of an initial claim within the policy's one year coverage limitation.