True love had unintended consequences, resulting in the case of Stradtman v. Republic Services, which remains pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Shortly after Stephen...more
In the context of a right of direct action by an injured party (Spain and France) against a D&I insurer, in The London Steamship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v The Kingdom of Spain & anr  EWCA Civ 333, 1...more
On May 14, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court held that a government-created insurance company, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, was immune from statutory first-party bad faith claims. The Florida Legislature created...more
We have repeatedly cautioned that those employees who are required by law to make reports to the Department of Children and Families [“DCF”] of suspected child abuse and neglect should always err on the side of caution and,...more
It was only a matter of time after the Supreme Court’s decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015) (*), that a state bar association would face an antitrust...more
The Florida Supreme Court has decided unanimously that the Florida legislature did not intend for Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (a state-created entity that provides property insurance) to be liable for statutory,...more
On April 22, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission submitted a public letter to the New York State Department of Health (DOH) expressing “strong concerns” over state regulations offering to provide antitrust immunity to certain...more
Q&A with Jeffrey A. Curran -
Q: Spring always brings a potential for severe weather in Oklahoma. Can a business be held liable if a customer is injured on its property during a storm?
A: The Oklahoma...more
A revised leniency procedural notice enhances the legal certainty and the procedural safeguards governing the French leniency procedure.
On April 3rd 2015, the French Competition Authority (the FCA) issued a revised...more
In a closely followed decision with significant consequences for state licensing boards and their members, the Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101...more
By the summer of 2014, it appeared that the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California had finally made it over the last hurdle to begin construction of a Class III casino with 2,000 slot machines and 40 gaming tables...more
In North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. F.T.C., No. 13-534 (2015), the United States Supreme Court ruled last week that the North Carolina Dental Board, which is comprised mainly of practicing dentists, was not...more
On April 2, 2014, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, published an opinion that limits the scope of the agent’s immunity rule insofar as it applies to employees of insurers involved in investigating...more
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in N.C. State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 13-534, 2015 WL 773331 (S.Ct. February 25, 2015) makes clear that the anticompetitive actions of state...more
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court released a 6-3 decision in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, a case with potentially broad implications for regulation by dental and...more
In a 6–3 decision issued February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission that if active market participants control an entity—even a...more
On Feb. 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that a state board with a controlling number of decision-makers who are active market participants in the occupation the board regulates does not enjoy state...more
In a ruling with significant implications for state professional licensing boards and their members, on February 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court found that practitioner-controlled state boards do not have inherent...more
The robed returned to action with this week with decisions in three cases, North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (13-534), on whether state licensing boards enjoy immunity from antitrust laws...more
Do you sit on a state board or are you regulated by one? If so, the United States Supreme Court decided a case last Wednesday that directly affects you.
Until recently, many assumed that a state agency or board enjoyed...more
On February 25, 2015, in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) decision finding that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners (Board), although a state...more
The Sixth Circuit recently ruled that facilities holding a Clean Water Act (“CWA”) Section 402 general permit – one of two types of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits – may avail themselves of...more
On January 23, 2015, the Court of Appeal published its opinion in Harb v. City of Bakersfield, et al., a case regarding an incident that occurred almost a decade ago. The opinion clarified how juries can be instructed in...more
Court Holds Sheriff Not Subject to Damages Under Section 1983 -
Overview: The California Court of Appeal clarified that the Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply in civil rights actions brought in California...more
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*
Back to Top