On May 24, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Palomar-Santiago, No. 20-437, holding that each of the statutory requirements for bringing a collateral attack against a removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)...more
On December 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Texas v. New Mexico, holding that New Mexico was entitled to delivery credit under the Pecos River Compact for water stored at the request of Texas that evaporated during...more
On December 10, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tanzin v. Tanvir, holding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their...more
On March 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., No. 18-565, construing a safe-berth clause in a widely used charter contract as a warranty of safety, and not simply a due...more
On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961, declining to address whether the class-action settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), and...more
On March 19, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, No. 17-1104, holding that in the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when: 1) its product requires incorporation...more
3/20/2019
/ Actual or Constructive Knowledge ,
Air and Liquid Systems Corp et al v Devries et al ,
Appeals ,
Asbestos ,
Asbestos Litigation ,
Component Parts Doctrine ,
Duty to Warn ,
Intended Use ,
Manufacturers ,
Maritime Transport ,
Reaffirmation ,
SCOTUS ,
Toxic Exposure ,
U.S. Navy ,
Wrongful Death
On January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-1229, holding in a unanimous decision that an invention sold to a third party under a confidentiality agreement...more
1/23/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Assignment of Inventions ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Helsinn Healthcare SA v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc ,
Inventions ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Public Use ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 102 ,
Third-Party Relationships
On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, No. 17-21, holding in a 8-1 decision that the petitioner need not prove the absence of probable cause to maintain a § 1983 claim of retaliatory...more
6/20/2018
/ 42 U.S.C. §1983 ,
Appeals ,
City Councils ,
Free Speech ,
Lozman v City of Riviera Beach Florida ,
Private Right of Action ,
Probable Cause ,
Public Comment ,
Retaliation ,
Retaliatory Arrests ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS
On April 17, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498, holding in a 5-4 decision that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s definition of “crime of violence” is void for vagueness.
The Immigration and...more
4/18/2018
/ Aggravated Felony ,
Appeals ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Criminal Convictions ,
Deportation ,
Fair-Notice Standard ,
Immigration and Nationality Act ,
Residual Clause ,
SCOTUS ,
Sessions v Dimaya ,
Vagueness ,
Violent Felonies ,
Void and Unenforceable
On April 2, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 16-1362, holding in a 5-4 decision that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exempts service advisors at car dealerships from the Act’s...more
4/3/2018
/ Automotive Industry ,
Car Dealerships ,
Exempt-Employees ,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,
Minimum Salary ,
Navarro v Encino Motorcars ,
Non-Exempt Employees ,
Over-Time ,
Sales Commissions ,
SCOTUS ,
Service Advisors ,
Wage and Hour