Eighth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Putative Class Claims
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
Revisiting McGirt: New Legal Developments Challenge Oklahoma’s Landmark Ruling
Court of Appeals Reversals from a Criminal Perspective | Jim Huggler | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
The Immediate and Lasting Impacts of McGirt: A Novel Ruling for Oklahoma
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman
#BigIdeas2020: NLRB’s Actions Impact Employers in 2020 - Employment Law This Week® - Trending News
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
Podcast: South Dakota v. Wayfair
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
In a recent unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Christopher Maia v. IEW Construction Group, the seven-judge panel reversed the prior judgment of the Appellate Division and held that the August 6, 2019,...more
In In re Estate of Wells, No. 12-23-00066-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 8475 (Tex. App.—Tyler November 8, 2023, no pet. history). The testator left a will that created a trust for his wife and descendants, named his wife as the...more
In a 4-3 decision, the Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion that significantly narrowed Iowa’s new statutory asbestos defense – holding the defense only protects asbestos product defendants who did not manufacture or sell the...more
Promissory Note / Statute of Limitations: Trial court's conclusion that the maturity date of the debt (pursuant to a promissory note, not a mortgage lien) could only be extended via a written and recorded agreement conflicted...more
In B&P Littleford, LLC v. Prescott Mach., LLC, No. 20-1449, 2021 WL 3732313 (6th Cir. Aug. 24, 2021) (unpublished), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently provided guidance as to factors courts should...more
The Supreme Court has reversed a DC Circuit decision which held that the territory of Guam was time-barred from pursuing a cost recovery action under CERCLA against the U.S. Government to pay its fair share for the clean-up...more
Since its adoption the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), has required employee benefit plan sponsors to make disclosures regarding plan terms and plan expenses. The most well-known of...more
A recently issued opinion by the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District tells a cautionary tale regarding a lender’s failure to name a junior lienholder in its initial judicial foreclosure action. In Cathleen Robin v....more
Brillman v. New England Guaranty Ins. Co., 2020 VT 16 (Feb. 21, 2020) - In this insurance coverage decision, the Vermont Supreme Court determined that the “date of loss,” which starts the clock running on the one-year...more
McNellis-Wallace v. Hoffman, et. al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-1488-19T1 - Brief Summary - A New Jersey appellate court held that a defendant in a malpractice case could not maintain a...more
This case concerns a company (“U.S. Home”) entering into a contract to purchase land from a limited liability company (“Purchase Agreement”) solely owned by two brothers (“Sellers”). On the same day of the purchase, U.S. Home...more
Flashback: Five years ago, Money and Dirt covered the Salazar v. Thomas opinion from California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal holding that a Notice of Default does not “disturb possession” sufficiently to start the...more
On February 26, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Intel Corp. Inv. Policy Comm. v. Sulyma, __. U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 768 (2020). The Court unanimously held that Christopher Sulyma ("Sulyma") did not necessarily...more
The Bullet Point: An Ohio Commercial Law Bulletin May 20, 2020 In this appeal, the Eleventh Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s decision finding that the defendants did not waive the defense of lack of personal...more
Under Section 413(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), ERISA’s three-year statute of limitations for fiduciary breaches and certain other violations starts to run when “the plaintiff had actual...more
As discussed in an earlier post on this blog, in Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee et al. v. Sulyma, No. 18-1116 (Feb. 26, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary...more
In its February 26, 2020, unanimous decision in Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding what constitutes “actual knowledge” for purposes of...more
Last Wednesday, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court concluded that receipt of participant disclosures and notices does not constitute “actual knowledge” of fees, investment options, and other plan features. Actual knowledge is the...more
The US Supreme Court recently decided a closely watched ERISA case against employers and fiduciaries. Under Section 413 of ERISA, the statute of limitations for a fiduciary breach claim is shortened from six years to three...more
The Supreme Court in Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee et al. v. Sulyma, case No. 18–1116, significantly narrowed the circumstances in which a three-year statute of limitations would apply to a claim for breach of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on February 26, 2020 that ERISA plaintiffs do not gain “actual knowledge” of fiduciary misconduct merely by receiving financial disclosures from the plan. The unanimous opinion in Intel Corp....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: On February 26, 2020, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee, et al. v. Sulyma. 589 U.S. ___ (2020), holding that plan participants must...more
On February 26, 2020, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision by Justice Samuel Alito, held that for purposes of assessing the appropriate statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty claim under the...more
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee et al. v. Sulyma (case number 18-1116). The decision requires a participant to have “actual knowledge” in order to apply ERISA’s...more