Making the Lawyer-Client Relationship Work in Challenging Litigation – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
Prelude to the Business Court and 15th Court of Appeals: More Questions Than Answers | Tyler Talbert | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Navigating Corporate Divorce With Michael Einbinder
Business Courts and Other Highlights of the 88th Texas Legislature | Jerry Bullard | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Tips for Developing an AI Framework
Counterclaims and Counterpunching to a Lawsuit – Speaking of Litigation Podcast
What to do When Your Business Has Been Sued
How can an emergency injunction save your business?
Law Brief ®: Alan Gaynor and Richard Schoenstein Explore Business Divorce
Webcast: Understanding and Defending State Consumer Protection Actions
Paths to Dispute Resolution
SullCrom Sees Litigation Boom Despite Waning Credit Crisis
The Litigation Byte is the new name and format for McGlinchey’s Commercial Law Bulletin. Our new format will reflect McGlinchey’s national coverage and our expanded footprint while still serving up the digestible, insightful...more
SCOTUS has once again clarified a court’s power to compel arbitration, this time in the context of conflicting delegation clauses. In doing so, the Court aptly acknowledged its standing tri-layered analysis of arbitral...more
A recent Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii decision permitted climate-related claims against major petroleum and gas companies to proceed toward trial. The decision in City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP allows...more
In its June 27, 2023, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a corporate defendant can be sued in Pennsylvania — regardless of whether the cause of action accrues in Pennsylvania or...more
On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court decided Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 2023 WL 4187749, 600 U.S. ___ (June 27, 2023), a decision that likely will reinvigorate forum-shopping efforts by plaintiffs...more
In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. __ (June 27, 2023), the United States Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law that enables a plaintiff to show general personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state...more
On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law that requires companies to consent to being sued in its state courts as a condition of registering to do business there. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, the Court...more
A new decision by the United States Supreme Court has greatly expanded the locations where corporations can be sued. Traditionally, corporations are considered to be citizens of the states in which they are incorporated or...more
Plaintiffs’ counsel rejoice, defense counsel take note, and businesses beware. Daimler has been diminished and businesses are no longer only subject to general jurisdiction in states in which they are incorporated or...more
On June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal district courts must stay all proceedings pending appellate review of an order denying a motion to compel arbitration. Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. ___, 2023 WL...more
Last November, I questioned whether the Supreme Court's decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. would endanger Delaware's corporate hegemony. The issue in that case was the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's...more
The use of arbitration clauses and agreements is not infrequent, forcing federal and state courts to address the enforceability of such agreements on numerous grounds. Courts have created variants of federal procedural rules,...more
The two most thrilling words to readers of legal blogs must be “personal jurisdiction.” In the term that starts October 2022, the United States Supreme Court will consider a case that will determine the constitutionality of...more
On June 13, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision on the issue of whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782 permits district courts to order discovery for use in international commercial arbitration or ad hoc...more
Anyone involved in civil litigation in the United States knows that U.S. courts permit broad discovery, in contrast to many foreign tribunals with narrower discovery rules. What foreign litigants may not know is that, under...more
On June 13, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., No. 21-401, holding that Section 1782 requires a “foreign or international tribunal” be a tribunal imbued with governmental authority....more
This is the third in a series of Legal Updates about international discovery and cross-border litigation. Robinson+Cole has broad experience representing international clients and their U.S. subsidiaries in both domestic and...more
On June 13, 2022, the Supreme Court rendered its decision on whether 28 U.S.C. §1782 (“§1782”) extends to foreign private arbitrations. In a consolidated action, the Court addressed two cases and unanimously held that only...more
On 13 June 2022, in ZF Automotive v. Luxshare, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not allow discovery for use in most international arbitral proceedings. The Supreme Court held that only...more
Litigants in foreign arbitrations have long looked to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 as a potential avenue for obtaining something close to US-style discovery. But, the US Supreme Court unanimously held this week that this federal statute...more
In ZF Automotive U.S., Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously determined that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 - a U.S. statute that allows participants in a “proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal” to discover...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that 28 U.S.C. § 1782 authorizes discovery to assist only governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies, and not private adjudicative bodies like the international commercial and ad hoc...more
The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a dispute on Monday, June 13, 2022, that had been simmering in the lower courts for some time: whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) authorizes district courts to order discovery in favor of private...more
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a May 23 decision, ruled that the federal policy favoring arbitration does not authorize federal courts to impose a prejudice requirement when evaluating whether a party has waived its right to...more
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts cannot enforce or vacate arbitration awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., unless they have an independent...more