News & Analysis as of

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

What’s in Your Wallet? Who Cares—What’s in Your Cell Phone Is More Important!

The United States Supreme Court has tackled the issue of cell phone privacy and ruled that data is different from other forms of technology. In late June, the Supreme Court issued an opinion: those of David Riley, a...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

United States Supreme Court: Warrants are required to search digital data on seized cell phones

On June 25, 2014, in Riley v. California, a unanimous United States Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires that police obtain a warrant prior to searching the digital data found on an arrested suspect’s cell...more

U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision Raises Questions About Cell Phone Searches in Schools

The long-standing test for searching students at school requires that the search must be based on a “reasonable suspicion” that the student violated a school rule or law. A recent criminal decision from the United States...more

Supreme Court Prohibits Warrantless Mobile Phone Searches, Underscores Individual Right to Privacy

The Supreme Court of the United States released a unanimous decision last week barring law enforcement from searching the mobile phones of individuals placed under arrest without first obtaining a search warrant or the...more

Supreme Court Rules That Police May Not Search Cell Phones Without A Warrant

One of the fundamental liberties protected by the Bill of Rights is freedom from unreasonable searches. The Fourth Amendment reflects the concern that “We the People” should not be subjected to intrusive searches of our...more

A Victory for Personal Information Privacy

In a stunning victory for Fourth Amendment rights and personal information privacy generally, the United States Supreme Court in Riley v California has held that police may not search an arrestee’s cell phone without a...more

U.S. Supreme Court: Police Must Obtain Warrant Before Searching Cell Phones

In a decision that changes the way law enforcement officers collect electronic information, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), that officers may not search a cell phone incident to a...more

Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Protects Cell Phones from Warrantless Searches

On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police must first obtain a warrant before searching the cell phones of arrested individuals, except in “exigent circumstances.” Chief Justice John Roberts authored...more

Privacy & Data Security Update: Supreme Court Rules that Warrants are Required for Cell Phone Searches

On June 25th, the Supreme Court brought the Fourth Amendment into the digital age with its ruling in Riley v. California. The case presented the question of whether a warrant was required in order for law enforcement to...more

Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Defends Expectation of Privacy In Cell Phone Data

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, limited the ability of law enforcement to search cell phones while making arrests, requiring police to obtain a search warrant before examining the data contained in an arrestee’s...more

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules That Police Officers Cannot Search the Contents of Cell Phones Incident to Arrest Without...

In Riley v. California, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police officers from searching through the data on an arrested suspect's cell phone as an "incident to the arrest"...more

Supreme Court Solidifies Privacy Protections for Cellphone Data by Holding Warrantless Searches Incident to Arrest...

With the present Term nearing its end, the U.S. Supreme Court took a major step forward in unanimously extending individual protections from police intrusion into the realm of digital privacy. In a consolidated decision in...more

Supreme Court Unanimously Prohibits Warrantless Searches of Cellphones

Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that law enforcement may not search a cellphone absent a warrant or exigent circumstances. The vast majority of law enforcement searches occur incident to arrest and...more

California Courts May No Longer Be Able to Certify a Ham Sandwich

Commentators have quipped that class certification is so easy in California that with little effort a group of plaintiffs could certify even a ham sandwich. In fact, we have seen a proliferation of recent appellate decisions...more

California Supreme Court Rejects Exceptionally Poor Sampling Method, But Leaves Open Many Questions About Sampling And Class...

In Duran v. U.S. Bank N.A., the California Supreme Court recently addressed an important question in the context of state-court class actions: Can plaintiffs invoke statistical sampling in an attempt to prove class-wide...more

On Remand, Federal Circuit Comes Around to Supreme Court’s Way of Thinking

Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. - On a remand from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, addressing the issue of the sufficiency of infringement evidence, affirmed a district...more

Supreme Court To Decide Evidentiary Requirements for Removal Notices in Class Actions

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the issue of what, if any, evidence a defendant must present in a notice of removal to remove a case to federal court based on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). In granting the...more

Securities Class Actions Receive Increased Scrutiny: District Court Applies “Stringent Standards” Of Dukes And Comcast To Deny...

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently denied certification of a putative securities law class after finding that plaintiff failed to put forth actual facts showing adequacy and...more

The New Normal: The Need for Damages Proof To Certify Consumer Classes Post-Comcast

In consumer class actions, the damages measure tends to remain undisclosed or ill-defined when plaintiffs move for class certification. Revealing as little as possible about damages allows plaintiffs to more flexibly adapt to...more

Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures: The Burden Of Proof Of Infringement In A Declaratory Judgment Action

On January 22, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC.1 The Court held that the burden of persuasion for proving patent infringement remains with the patentee in a...more

40 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2