Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 504: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motions for New Trial (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 306: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 3 – The Civil Lawsuit)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 412: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Summary Judgment
What Litigants Need to Know about Summary Judgment
JONES DAY TALKS®: Tiffany v. Costco Raises Trademark Infringement, Counterfeiting Questions
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: Examining FDA’s Enforcement Authority Over Stem Cell Clinics and Compounders
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
In an important decision under California’s Proposition 65, a federal court recently ruled that businesses cannot be required to provide a product warning under Proposition 65 where there is no scientific consensus on whether...more
California’s Proposition 65 (“Prop 65”), is well-known to companies selling consumer products, including food and beverage items in California. It is common to see Prop 65 warning labels on everything from household...more
On March 31, 2025, a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, granted summary judgment for the plaintiff in NetChoice, LLC v. Griffin, a case in which NetChoice, an internet trade...more
If you are considering filing a defamation lawsuit or other speech-based claim, you are likely aware that your claim may be challenged based upon free-speech principles or that the defendant may claim that their conduct is...more
In a case that required the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to articulate the boundary between the Lanham Act and the First Amendment when the trademark in question is the name of a political party, the Court found...more
A federal judge has held that Pennsylvania’s Rule 8.4(g),1 which subjects lawyers to professional discipline for engaging in discriminatory conduct, violates both the free speech clause of the First Amendment and the due...more
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., Case No. 19–631 (2020). The federal government cannot exempt itself from the anti-robocall provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U. S. C....more
In a significant vindication of the public’s right of access to court proceedings, Judge Harvey Bartle III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that court rules barring the public from...more
In a unanimous decision earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a provision in Montana’s Robocall Statute restricting political messages was unconstitutional. In doing so, the court overturned a district court ruling...more
Real Property Update - • Foreclosure / Reverse Mortgage / Condition Precedent: bank failed to establish that the subject property was not the principal residence of surviving co-borrower under its reverse mortgage, a...more
Courts continue to grapple with the scope and meaning of the ministerial exception doctrine. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that a...more
Key Cases - Establishment Challenge to Presidential Proclamation Subject to Rational Basis Review - In Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. 2392 (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the lowest level of constitutional...more
A California law that prohibits merchants from imposing a surcharge on credit card purchases violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has...more