Evidence Supreme Court of the United States

News & Analysis as of

Trademark Review | April 2015

The Supreme Court Rules TTAB Findings May Have Preclusive Effect in Later Federal Court Proceedings - B&B and Hargis have long contested each other’s rights in the mark "SEALTIGHT" for fasteners. B&B was the first to...more

B&B Hardware v Hargis Industries - Supreme Court: TTAB rulings refusing registration on likelihood of confusion grounds may be...

The United States Supreme Court has decided an important question of trademark law that has divided the courts of appeals. The Court held in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., No. 13-352, 575 U.S. ____, 2015...more

Court Decides Sarbanes-Oxley Is Intended for a Different Kettle of Fish The Fish Tale and the U.S. Supreme Court: Part II

By a surprisingly narrow margin, the U.S. Supreme Court recently spared future fishermen from facing up to 20 years in prison for destroying their catch. The case, Yates v. United States of America, involved the curious tale...more

A Colorful Supreme Court Case Revives the Rule of Lenity

Last month, the Supreme Court’s decision in Yates v. United States provided much fodder for pun-filled headlines about fishing. The case involved the government’s attempt to stretch the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which originally...more

Standard of Review for Claim Construction on Appeal

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the standard of review for claim construction on appeal in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 12-854. The Court held “[w]hen reviewing a district...more

Supreme Court Limits Scope of SOX Anti-Shredding Provision

The US Supreme Court recently reversed the conviction of a commercial fisherman, John L. Yates, accused of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1519, also known as the anti-shredding provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), holding that...more

SCOTUS Narrows SOX Obstruction Statute

In its recent ruling in Yates v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a conviction under Sarbanes-Oxley’s “anti-shredding” statute, holding that it covers documents, records and only “tangible objects” similar to...more

Yates v. United States: Supreme Court Reins in Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s “Anti-Shredding” Provision

Action Item: The Supreme Court’s decision in Yates v. United States will significantly impact how in-house counsel, outside counsel, and compliance officers alike should advise their clients with respect to evidence...more

SOX, the Destruction of Evidence And Dr. Seuss: Is a Fish A Tangible Object?

Section 1519 was passed as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the wake of Enron’s massive accounting fraud. The section was designed to fill a gap in the law by preventing corporate document-shredding to conceal evidence of...more

SCOTUS Rules No Felony for Throwing the Little Ones Overboard

The case, Yates v. United States, arose from a offshore inspection of a commercial fishing vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. During the inspection, a federal agent found that the ship’s catch contained undersized red grouper, in...more

High Court Divided: Is A Fish A Tangible Object?

Gulf fisherman John Yates was cited by a federally-deputized Florida Fish & Wildlife officer for having caught a few red grouper that were about an inch under the 20” minimum limit at the time (they’d have been legal under...more

Supreme Court Rejects the Government’s “Fishy” Interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley Obstruction Statute

On February 25, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Yates v. United States.1 This case involved the interpretation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1519, a statute that was added as part of the...more

Supreme Court Decides Yates v. United States

On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Yates v. United States, No. 13-7451, holding that fish are not “tangible objects” within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. §1519, a federal law providing that a person who...more

Supreme Court Interprets Sarbanes-Oxley Evidence Destruction Provisions

We now know that Sarbanes-Oxley does not apply to fish . . . While conducting an offshore inspection of a commercial fishing vessel in the Gulf of Mexico, a federal agent found that the ship’s catch contained...more

U.S. Supreme Court Scrutinizes Three Proposed Standards for Determining Section 11 Liability for Statements of Opinion or Belief

On Monday, November 3, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held oral argument in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, No. 13-435. As noted in our previous client alert regarding this case,...more

The Fish Tale and the Supreme Court: How Applying Sarbanes-Oxley to Missing Grouper Has Raised Questions of Overcriminalization

The Issues - On November 5, 2014, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Yates v. United States of America. In layman's terms, the issue is whether an Enron-era antishredding provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was...more

High Court Likely Won’t Affirm 6th Circ. Omnicare Ruling

On Nov. 3, 2014, oral argument was held in another securities case being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court this year, Omnicare Inc. v. Laborers District Council. The issue before the Supreme Court is whether a plaintiff can...more

Omnicare Court Ponders Two Middle Paths: One Rocky, One Smooth

Monday’s oral argument before the Supreme Court in Laborers District Counsel Construction Industry Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., (“Omnicare”) was remarkable in that, as Omnicare attorney Kannon Shanmugam noted, it was the...more

Searching Student Smart Phones in The Wake of Riley V. California

In the recent, landmark case of Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court held that the police may not search digital data on the cell phone of an arrestee without a warrant, reasoning that smart phones not only...more

Blog: SCOTUS Hears Omnicare: When Can A Statement Of Opinion Be Actionable As A “False Statement Of Material Fact”?

Yesterday, SCOTUS heard oral argument in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund. The case seeks to answer this question: when can a statement of opinion be actionable as a “false...more

Supreme Court Oral Argument in Dart Cherokee Basin v. Owens

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument this week in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No. 13-719. This case involves whether a defendant must provide evidence with its notice of removal under the Class Action...more

Supreme Court to Answer Question of Whether Evidence Is Required for Removal to Federal Court

Is "a short and plain statement" of the grounds for removal sufficient to remove a case to federal court? Or must a defendant supply admissible evidence in its notice of removal to prove amount in controversy? The Supreme...more

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Securities Fraud Class Certification, Remands for Evidence to Rebut Presumption of Market Efficiency

In Local 703 v. Regions Financial Corp., No. 12:14168 (Aug. 6, 2014), the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the certification of a securities fraud class action brought by investors against Regions for allegedly misrepresenting its...more

Supreme Court to Protect Information on Cell Phones

The digital age has created a world in which over-sharing is the norm and electronic devices are capable of storing significant amounts of one’s personal information. However, in an important step to protect the privacy of...more

In Riley, Supreme Court Sets Mobile Device Privacy Expectations

In a recent decision with significant implications for smart phone users’ privacy expectations, the Supreme Court, in Riley v. California, unanimously rejected the application of the “incident to arrest doctrine” to law...more

57 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×