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
When performing governmental functions, municipal agencies are immune from tort liability for negligence unless it is shown that there was a “special relationship” between the plaintiff and the agency at the time the claim...more
In a striking blow, stripping a city of a judgment of nearly $1 million, the Massachusetts Appeals Court recently reversed a superior court summary judgment awarding fines to the City of Haverhill for a developer’s violations...more
The Massachusetts Land Court (“Land Court”) in a December 24th decision addressed a challenge to the Town of Ware’s (the “Town”) requirement that PLH LLC (“PLH”) obtain a special permit for its proposed ground-mounted solar...more
On August 26, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Florida Law, held that ill-gotten gains do not constitute covered “loss” within the meaning of a D&O policy. In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Sabal...more
In City of Oroville v. Superior Court, 446 P.3d 304 (Cal. 2019), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the City of Oroville (City) was liable to a dental practice for inverse condemnation damages associated with...more
We recently reported on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Oroville which provided a relaxed standard for public agencies facing inverse condemnation claims. Since that decision, a new unpublished Court of Appeal...more
In Jennissen v. City of Bloomington, 913 N.W.2d 456 (2018), the Minnesota Supreme Court recently held that Minn. Stat. § 115A.94 (2016) does not preempt local ordinances concerning municipal waste collection systems, finding...more
The onset of spring weather can mean only one thing: We are heading into prime season for road construction. If you haven’t seen the cones and Jersey barriers yet, you will soon. The new construction season brings with it...more
A recent ruling sheds additional light on Ohio municipal utilities’ authority to sell surplus power to customers outside their boundaries. On May 10, 2019, Judge Robert C. Pollex, sitting as a visiting judge on the Cuyahoga...more
Here’s one for the history buffs! A quiet feud between the State of New York and the Town of Oyster Bay over the Town’s underwater boundary has been resolved (for now) in Murphy v. Town of Oyster Bay, — N.Y.S.3d —-, 2019 WL...more
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Seattle violated the First Amendment by banning “disparaging” ads on city buses....more
Aquatic Renovations Sys. v. Vill. of Walbridge, 2018 Ohio App. Lexis 1581 (April 13, 2018) On May 2, 2012, Aquatic Renovations Systems, Inc. (“Aquatic”) entered into a contract with the Village of Walbridge (“the Village”)...more
On April 3, 2018, the New York Court of Appeals issued a closely divided opinion in Rodriguez v. City of New York, Case No. 32, holding that plaintiffs need not establish the absence of their own comparative negligence in...more
Many interlocutory orders in Texas state court can be immediately appealed, but only if a notice of appeal is filed within 20 days. The Texas Supreme Court, in City of Magnolia 4A Development Corporation v. Smedley, recently...more
A recent decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the distinction between firing an employee for personal or politically expedient reasons (which may be entirely legal) and firing an employee because of his...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (“Court”) addressed in an October 23rd opinion Plaintiffs-Appellants Central Oregon LandWatch and WaterWatch of Oregon (collectively “Plaintiffs”) challenge to the United...more
In an important decision for municipalities across the country, a federal court in Minnesota has recently ruled that actions taken under RLUIPA’s “safe harbor” provision absolved a local government of possible RLUIPA...more
Employers often feel forced to walk on eggshells around employees who have made informal or formal complaints of discrimination, and often go so far as excusing otherwise inappropriate conduct for fear of a retaliation claim...more
McClain v. County of Clark, No. 12-16888 (October 10, 2014): The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently sided with an employer in a case in which the former employee claimed that he was subjected to ageist remarks. According...more