(NY Supreme Court) - 527621

(NY Supreme Court) - 2020–03456

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to indemnify an insured for the cost of cleaning up groundwater contamination at its industrial sites. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, in this case involving the policy's pollution exclusion clause.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A company found, during a random audit by the Indiana Department of Insurance, to have committed hundreds of regulatory violations that entered into an agreement to pay a fine and relinquish its licenses could not subsequently sue the Department's commissioner alleging discrimination for their out-of-state residency without providing a valid reason to void the agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Certified. The state Supreme Court was asked how they would interpret the subrogation waiver in common form contracting agreements, a question that has split courts nationwide.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court had jurisdiction over a Labor Management Relations Act Claim relating to a maritime labor union because the act provides federal jurisdiction over suits for violation of contracts between employers and labor organizations.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. In appealing an award of summary judgement for the defendants, plaintiff argues she proffered sufficient evidence to raise triable issues of fact in her sex discrimination case. Finding plaintiff’s arguments fail on the merits, the panel affirms.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Declined to hear a challenge to Treasury Offset Program regulations. A law firm ended up with nothing in legal fees because the government administratively offset fees awarded to its Social Security recipient clients under the Equal Access to Justice Act against the clients' various debts to the government. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the offset matter was better suited for a separate action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and declined to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over a collateral challenge to the pertinent regulations.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a husband and wife were not liable for a 2008 tax deficiency. The IRS had applied the substance‐over‐form doctrine to recharacterize various lawful tax‐avoiding transactions as tax‐generating events for the taxpayers, their adult sons, a family trust, and a family‐controlled corporation. Reversed the tax court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a school district failed to take the proper steps to enact a fee on new residential development within the district to fund the construction of school facilities. Held that the fee study did not contain the data required to properly calculate a development fee.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the limits of a State's power to tax a trust. Struck down a North Carolina requirement that a trust must pay income tax to the State whenever the trust's beneficiaries live in the State -- regardless of whether the beneficiaries have received, can demand, or will ever receive a distribution of trust income. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, in this due process challenge brought by a family trust.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that investors could not proceed with a lawsuit accusing an attorney of being complicit in a client's Ponzi scheme. The attorney had immunity because, under Texas law, a non-client is not allowed to sue an attorney for conduct that occurred within the scope of the attorney's representation of a client. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings in favor of the law firm.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's dismissal of a defamation action as it related to out-of-state defendants because Connecticut's long-arm jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants excepting defamation actions does not violate the plaintiff's First or Fourteenth Amendment rights in a case where a media publisher reported on the plaintiff's lawsuit accusing their former Netherlands employer of a kickback operation involving Qaddafi and quoted the employer's statements about him, but reversing and remanding a decision that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim as it related to the employer's statements that he had repeatedly tried to extort money from them to determine whether the implication was indeed defamatory.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of an action alleging that ESPN gave away personally identifiable information in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act by giving Adobe Analytics the plaintiff's Roku device serial number and identifying videos he watched through an ESPN app, rejecting ESPN's contention that the plaintiff lacked standing because every disclosure of personally identifiable information provides standing, but holding that an ordinary person couldn't use the information to identify an individual.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's dismissal for failure to state a claim in the case of a musician whose video was taken down from YouTube, which posted a statement that the video had violated their terms of service, because using violence and profanity as examples of things that could result in the removal of a video did not amount to libel.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government was justified in refusing to release certain photographs of detainees taken by U.S. Army personnel at military detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations demanded that the photographs be released under the Freedom of Information Act. The government countered that the photographs were shielded from disclosure by a 2009 law, the Protected National Security Documents Act. Agreeing with the government, the Second Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the government.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a defamation suit brought by a hedge fund manager who claimed Bloomberg News falsely reported that he was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The plaintiff brought suit against Bloomberg, as well as the reporter and editor of the story, alleging that they had defamed him and committed other common-law torts. Agreeing with the district court, the First Circuit held that the plaintiff was required to plausibly allege actual malice because he was at least a limited-purpose public figure and that he had failed to allege such facts.

(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 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) - In a dispute involving a dental practice, addressed the effect of a now-deceased partner's decision to assign his partnership interest to a trust. Reversed the decision below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's decision to sustain a demurrer by Uber, who argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear a putative class action brought by licensed taxicab drivers because the Public Utilities Code did not apply where the California Public Utilities Commission was in the process of developing rules relating to the company's activites and the second amended complaint failed to state a claim as to all causes of action.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a group of electrical power generators and related trade groups could not proceed with their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the New York Public Service Commission's Zero Emissions Credit program, which subsidizes qualifying nuclear power plants by creating state‐issued clean-energy credits. Affirmed a dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that ride-sharing company Uber must comply with administrative subpoenas issued by San Francisco's City Attorney seeking data submitted to the California Public Utility Commission. Affirmed the decision below, rejecting Uber's confidentiality arguments.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal of a decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which affirmed the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determination in an antidumping investigation into oil country tubular goods (OCTGs) from Saudi Arabia and other countries imported into the U.S., the Trade Court's decision is vacated where the parties failed to exhaust their arguments before Commerce, and the Trade Court abused its discretion in waiving the exhaustion requirement in this case.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal of the International Trade court's decision sustaining the determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce on remand to apply adverse facts available (AFA) after defendant did not report input purchases for two of its steel mills, the Trade Court decision is affirmed where Commerce's application of AFA to defendant is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the US Court of International Trade's decision denying a duty drawback adjustment for exports of oil country tubular goods where the Turkish company claiming the drawback adjustment claimed that Commerce only increases price to account for rebated rather than unpaid import duties, a position the court declined to adopt.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacating a decision by the US Court of International Trade affirming a US Department of Commerce determination that certain imported oil country tubular goods (OCTG) fabricated as unfinished OCTG in China and finished in other countries were not subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders covering OCTG imported from China because the Trade Court improperly proscribed the use of the substantial transformation analysis to determine the country of origin.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of an in rem suit filed against a ship for cargo damage sustained in transit because liability for the damage was covered by the carrier's bill of lading, which included a forum selection clause requiring suit be brought in South Korea because although South Korean courts would not allow an in rem suit, the plaintiff could have brought an in personam suit and chose not to do so for strategic reasons and the foreign forum selection clause did not violate the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

(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) - The court reversed summary judgment in favor of defendants where a factfinder could have reasonably inferred that actual confusion injured the plaintiff's goodwill and business reputation, and no further showing of injury is necessary to survive summary judgment.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Grant of a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from infringing upon the trade dress of Hansen Beverage Company's line of "Monster" energy drinks with defendant's line of "Freek" energy drinks is reversed where the district court abused its discretion in determining that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, as a finding of a likelihood of confusion was clearly erroneous.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit against its insurer, arising from an underlying suit against the plaintiff over its marketing of Christmas lights for copying packaging design and for using false and deceptive language, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the insurer had, but did not breach, a duty to defend; 2) the district court properly declined to require the insurer to reimburse plaintiff's contract indemnitee's expenses; but 3) the case is remanded to resolve whether the insurer owes prejudgment interest on litigation expenses and reimbursement for the settlement expenses in the underlying suit.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement suit involving three competitor companies that create argon gas-enhanced electrosurgical products for electrosurgery, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) because the district court's construction of "low flow rate" is correct, and because there is no evidence that the accused probes infringe the asserted claims in the '745 patent, the district court's judgment of non-infringement is affirmed; 2) district court correctly granted summary judgment against plaintiff as to its trademark and trade dress claims based on the court's determination that the color blue is functional and has not acquired the requisite secondary meaning; 3) the district court properly granted summary judgment on defendant's antitrust counterclaims in favor of the plaintiffs as the "Sham litigation" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is not warranted in this case because the record demonstrates that plaintiff had probable cause to bring this patent enforcement litigation, and defendant failed to meet its burden of seeking discovery on its antitrust claims and failed to establish some genuine issue of material fact as to the other predatory acts is argues the district court ignored

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In litigation over competing lines of high-end cookware in which the appellees claimed trade dress infringement and unfair and deceptive trade practices, the district court's judgment in favor of the appellees is affirmed, where: 1) the appellant's failure to move pursuant to Rule 50(b) forfeited its challenge on appeal to the sufficiency of the evidence; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an expert or in admitting his testimony and survey; 3) the appellant engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices as a matter of law; 4) the infringement was not innocent or unintentional, and the unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes covered it; and 5) the trial judge properly treated the award of profits as damages subject to trebling under state statute.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action for trade-dress infringement and unfair competition under sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) and Virginia common law, is vacated and remanded, where: 1) plaintiff alleges that defendant used a similar dot pattern on its GoodNites bed mats as plaintiff used on plaintiff's absorbent products; 2) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual question as to whether their selection of a pixel pattern was a purely aesthetic choice among many alternatives; and thus, 3) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the functionality of its pixel pattern.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part a patent infringement final judgment. Polara, a manufacturer of accessible pedestrian signal systems, filed suit against its competitor Campbell and prevailed after a trial on certain infringement claims. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Campbell's JMOL motion but vacated the enhanced damages award and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that tribal sovereign immunity could not be asserted in a patent proceeding. A pharmaceutical company involved in a dispute over an eye medication patent transferred the title of its patent to a Native American tribe, which then moved to terminate the patent proceeding on the basis of sovereign immunity. Concluding that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the Tribe's motion to terminate the proceeding.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a judgment that a patent for a pharmaceutical product was invalid on the ground of obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that obviousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.

(United States Federal Circuit) - A company appealed from the determination in an inter partes review that certain claims of its patent directed to dental implants were unpatentable. Affirming, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in its anticipation finding.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for murder in the second degree and related offenses are affirmed where the trial court: 1) properly permitted the People to call a government witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before receiving immunity; 2) properly permitted the government to use a redacted statement for the limited purpose of impeaching its own witness; and 3) did not abuse its discretion by precluding defendant's expert from testifying with regard to the effects of event stress on eyewitness identification.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for murder in the second degree and related offenses are affirmed where the trial court: 1) properly permitted the People to call a government witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before receiving immunity; 2) properly permitted the government to use a redacted statement for the limited purpose of impeaching its own witness; and 3) did not abuse its discretion by precluding defendant's expert from testifying with regard to the effects of event stress on eyewitness identification.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. In a case involving people attempting to adopt Indian children and challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, the plaintiffs had standing but were not entitled to summary judgment. Judgment was rendered to the defendant US government, its agencies, and Indian tribes.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. Prison officials sued for Eighth Amendment violations over their refusal to provide gender reassignment surgery to a prisoner were entitled to qualified immunity because caselaw did not clearly put them on notice their action was unconstitutional.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an action stemming from the death of plaintiff's 15-year old son from a rare form of asphyxiation known as "dry drowning" or "secondary drowning" shortly after his participation in a mandatory swimming class run by his physical education teacher, claiming violations of her son's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the district court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment, on the basis of qualified immunity, is reversed where defendant's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - An award of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) benefits to a former NFL player displaying symptoms of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is affirmed where the board of the NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan failed to follow a reasoned process or explain the basis of its determination to deny benefits.

(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 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 reverse validation action under Code Civ. Proc. section 863 challenging the propriety of school districts' use of lease-leaseback agreements in contracting for construction or improvement of school facilities, the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrer is: 1) reversed in part as to the conflict of interest claim where plaintiff has stated a claim of conflict of interest against the construction company-defendant sufficient to withstand a demurrer; but 2) otherwise affirmed.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer of military aircraft that was sued in state court in an asbestos-related personal injury action was entitled to remove the case under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1442(a), based on the assertion of a government contractor defense. Reversed the district court.