Exploring Procedural Justice | Judge Steve Leben | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Handling Post-Conviction Death Penalty Cases Pro Bono | McKenzie Edwards | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Inside the Fourth Court of Appeals’ Clerk’s Office | Michael Cruz | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Supersedeas and Other Recent Rule Changes | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Supreme Court Miniseries: Tribal Rights in the 21st Century
SDNY Chooses “Time Approach” to Calculating Lease Termination Damages Collectible Against a Bankrupt Estate
AGG Talks: Home Health & Hospice - Reimbursement Audits and Appeals
After ALJ: Options and Opportunities in the Face of an Unfavorable ALJ Decision
Understanding the SCOTUS Shadow Docket | Steve Vladeck | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Podcast: The Legal Battle Over Mifepristone - Diagnosing Health Care
Checking in On the 88th Texas Legislature | Jerry Bullard | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Law Brief®: Rich Schoenstein and New York State Senator Luis Sepúlveda Discuss The Chief Judge Controversy
Appellate Justice for Domestic Violence Survivors
Jury Charges and Oral Argument | David Keltner | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
The Evolution of Texas Appellate Practice| David Keltner | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Podcast: California Employment News - Time to Do Away With Rounding Policies
Two Federal Courts Deal Blow to Biden Administration’s Federal Student Loan Forgiveness Program: A Close Look at the Decisions
This Am Law 50 senior counsel cements his authority through two appellate analytics blogs - Legally Contented Podcast
An Inside Look as a Juror - FCRA Focus Podcast
Reflections on 100 Episodes | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
National Association of Wheat Growers, et al. v. Rob Bonta, - No. 20-16758 (9th Cir.—November 7, 2023): The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor. The panel held...more
Third Time’s A Charm: California Re-Introduces Proposed Changes to Proposition 65’s Warnings and Safe Harbor Requirements - On October 27, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the lead...more
Under California’s Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”), businesses are required to give “clear and reasonable warnings” to consumers regarding potential chemical exposure if their product contains a chemical “known to the state to...more
Key Takeaway: In Superior Oil Company, Inc. v. Labno-Fritchley, 207 N.E.3d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s denial of summary judgment in a product liability case. The court...more
After 12 years of litigation, coffee manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are one step closer to closing the door on Proposition 65 warnings on coffee. Coffee generally does not require Proposition 65 warnings—this...more
A California state appeals court affirmed a bong maker’s win in a suit alleging it violated California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) by failing to warn consumers that its products expose them to marijuana smoke that could cause...more
Massachusetts state and federal courts issued a number of important product liability decisions in 2019. The Product Liability practice group at Nutter recently reviewed these cases. Highlighted below are some of the key...more
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) has finalized a highly anticipated Proposition 65 regulation relating to coffee. The regulation, California Code of Regulations Section 25704, takes...more
Can you be forced to slap language on a product you sell that not only do you not agree with but which can be false or misleading – and scare your customers? In California the answer is yes. But that may be finally...more
In an en banc decision issued yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed U.S. District Court Judge Edward M. Chen's denial of a preliminary injunction in an action challenging a San Francisco ordinance requires...more
There have been several major developments in the Proposition 65 world this summer. Below we summarize these latest developments in more detail. They include: (1) the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District...more
A California appeals court has reversed a trial court decision that would require businesses to post Proposition 65 cancer warnings on certain breakfast cereals for acrylamide. The court ruled that a Proposition 65 warning...more
A recent appellate decision from the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles has determined that breakfast cereals do not require a Proposition 65 warning for acrylamide. Post Foods, LLC v. Superior Court of Los...more
Last week, the California Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff’s suit seeking to require Proposition 65 acrylamide based cancer warnings on 59 popular breakfast cereals was preempted by federal nutrition policies aimed at...more
On May 9, 2018, the Second Appellate District held in Charles et al. v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc., et al. that several winemakers that provided general Proposition 65 safe harbor warnings for alcoholic beverages on their...more
February was a busy month in the Proposition 65 world with two developments that may impact businesses that manufacture or sell processed meat or chocolate products. In addition, the United States District Court for the...more
In an opinion issued on August 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a writ of mandamus requested by Pesticide Action Network North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council (Petitioners)...more
On April 28, 2015, the Environmental Law Foundation (“ELF”) filed a petition in the California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., et...more
In a rare published decision concerning California’s expansive Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as “Prop 65,” the California Court of Appeal on March 17, 2015, dealt companies a victory in...more
Auburn Courthouse Prop 65Recent attempts to modify California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Proposition 65, have been the work of the California Legislature. (See A Sane Tweak To Proposition 65 and...more
An opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on February 20, 2015 held that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) preempted claims that Lexapro’s U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)...more
On January 20, 2015, the U.S Supreme Court denied cert in Teva v. Superior Court of California, Orange County, refusing to review a California state court ruling allowing patients to proceed with claims that Teva...more
Earlier this week, a Missouri appeals court issued an opinion that will hopefully have a significant impact on ongoing litigation against the manufacturers of metoclopramide, the generic version of Reglan. In this latest...more