News & Analysis as of

Mens Rea Supreme Court of the United States

Holland & Knight LLP

Supreme Court's Decision in Diaz Could Be a Boon for Criminal Healthcare Fraud Defendants

Holland & Knight LLP on

A defendant's mens rea, or intent, is almost always a contested element in a criminal prosecution, particularly in criminal healthcare fraud cases that frequently arise out of complex legal and regulatory regimes....more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Counterman v. Colorado

On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Counterman v. Colorado, No. 22-138, holding that a criminal prosecution based on a true threat of violence requires proof that the defendant subjectively understood the...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court Creates a Problem it Sought to Solve

Fox Rothschild LLP on

With a few exceptions the Supreme Courts of the United States both in Washington and 50 state capitals are courts of “limited jurisdiction.” That is to say that they don’t hold trials and they essentially determine what cases...more

Goodwin

The Supreme Court Holds that the False Claims Act’s Scienter Element Turns on Defendant’s Subjective Beliefs, Rejecting Seventh...

Goodwin on

The Supreme Court recently issued a significant decision clarifying what it means to “knowingly” submit a false claim under the False Claims Act. At issue in United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. were allegations...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Supreme Court Ruling Finds "Strong" Mens Rea Requirement for Prosecution Under the CSA

Holland & Knight LLP on

In Ruan v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2022, dealt a blow to the U.S. Department of Justice by vacating convictions of two physicians convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. §841(a) of the Controlled Substances...more

Quarles & Brady LLP

High Court Rules “State of Mind” Relevant in Prosecuting Prescribers under the Controlled Substance Act

Quarles & Brady LLP on

Last week the Supreme Court ("the Court") released a decision holding that the Federal Controlled Substance Act (the "Act") provision that criminalizes the dispensing of a controlled substance “except as authorized” includes...more

Foley Hoag LLP

DOJ and SEC Release Second Edition of FCPA Resource Guide

Foley Hoag LLP on

On July 3, 2020, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) released the Second Edition of their Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “Resource Guide”). As...more

Greenberg Glusker LLP

Supreme Court Unanimously Holds that Willfulness is Not a Prerequisite for an Award Disgorging Trademark Infringer’s Profits

Greenberg Glusker LLP on

On April 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Lanham Act does not require a showing of willful infringement to justify an award of defendant’s profits to the plaintiff. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v....more

Lowenstein Sandler LLP

Romag Fasteners: SCOTUS Holds That Plaintiffs in Trademark Suits Need Not Show "Willful Intent" of Infringement to Recover Damages...

Lowenstein Sandler LLP on

In a recent unanimous decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court brought some welcome clarity to the question of whether willfulness is required in order to recover an infringer’s profits under...more

Smart & Biggar

Whether or not there’s a will, there’s still a way to infringers’ profits in Canadian trademark litigation

Smart & Biggar on

Late last month, in a landmark decision heralded by brand owners, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Romag Fasteners, Inc v Fossil Group, Inc that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

MarkIt to Market® - April 2020: Two Takeaways from Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.

On April 23, 2020, Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered a unanimous opinion in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., clarifying that a Lanham Act provision does not require a plaintiff to prove that acts of infringement are...more

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Supreme Court Sends Potentially Mixed Signals to Trademark Owners

The Supreme Court giveth to trademark owners—will it now taketh away? A trademark owner is not required to establish willful infringement to disgorge an infringer’s profits under the Lanham Act....more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - March 2, 2020

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

This morning, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in the following cases: California v. Texas, No. 19-840; Texas v. California, No. 19-1019: A petition for a writ of certiorari and conditional...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - November 15, 2019

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

This afternoon, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in the following cases: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 18-956: 1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface. 2) Whether,...more

Jones Day

U.S. Supreme Court: Government Went Too Far in Tax Obstruction Prosecution

Jones Day on

The U.S. Supreme Court today barred the government from prosecuting taxpayers for obstructing the administration of the Internal Revenue Code, unless it can show they acted in response to a pending or reasonably foreseeable...more

15 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

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