Evidence Supreme Court of the United States

News & Analysis as of

Post-Tyson Foods, Defendants Should Take the Offensive in Discovery Sampling

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tyson Foods and in light of the greater emphasis on proportionality in the amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants can expect to see an increase in the use of sampling in...more

Employment Law - April 2016

Supreme Court Gives Stamp of Approval to Representative Statistical Evidence - Why it matters - In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the use of representative statistical evidence for...more

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Use of Representative Statistical Evidence to Establish Class-wide Liability in Tyson Foods Overtime...

In a much-anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently affirmed a $2.9 million judgment in a class action for unpaid overtime wages against Tyson Foods Inc. (Tyson) in which employee class members relied on...more

Intellectual Property and Technology News (North America), Issue 29, Q1 2016

Wecome to the first issue of IPT News for 2016. When I am making New Year’s resolutions and setting goals for the coming year, I like to look back and see where I have been to plan for what is coming up ahead. We are taking...more

Supreme Court Update: Lockhart V. United States (14-8358), Gobeille V. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (14-181)

Who could have imagined a month ago that our summary of Justice Scalia's dissent in Montgomery v. Alabama (14-280) would be our last opportunity to analyze an opinion from the Justice who, alongside Jackson and Holmes, will...more

Digital Emotions: The Evidentiary Impact of Emoticons and Emojis

When computer science professor Scott Fahlman posted a sideways smiley face on an electronic message board at Carnegie Mellon University in 1982, he could not possibly have known that combination of dots and dashes would give...more

Digital Emotions: The Evidentiary Impact of Emoticons and Emojis

When computer science professor Scott Fahlman posted a sideways smiley face on an electronic message board at Carnegie Mellon University in 1982, he could not possibly have known that combination of dots and dashes would give...more

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether to Relax the Standard for Award of Enhanced Patent Damages

The U.S. Supreme Court announced last week that it will decide two cases concerning the issue of when district courts may award enhanced damages to patentees upon a finding of infringement. Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, U.S., No....more

Supreme Court Update: Maryland V. Kulbicki (14-848) And Order List

… und willkommen zurück! Oktober Term 2015 kicks off today with argument in OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs (13-1067), a case which explores the contours of the commercial-activity exception to the Foreign Sovereign...more

September 2015: Appellate Update

Postscript to the U.S. Supreme Court’s October 2014 Term. The Supreme Court of the United States completed its October 2014 term in June, having decided a number of matters of wide public interest. Among the most notable was...more

B&B Hardware v. Hargis – What it Means and How it will Affect TTAB Litigation

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision that may significantly impact how Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) cases are litigated and whether potential litigants elect to forego TTAB litigation in certain...more

Supreme Court Holds That Disparate-Impact Claims are Available Under the FHA

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits lenders, brokers, landlords or any other person from discriminating against a person seeking to rent, purchase or secure financing on a home. The FHA specifically prohibits discrimination...more

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

67 Results
View per page
Page: of 3
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.