On June 8, 2020, the Supreme Court decided Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369, holding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) prevents a prisoner who has had at least three lawsuits dismissed because they were...more
6/10/2020
/ Appeals ,
Dismissal With Prejudice ,
Dismissals ,
Failure To State A Claim ,
FRCP 41 ,
Frivolous Lawsuits ,
In Forma Pauperis ,
Lomax v Ortiz-Marquez ,
PLRA ,
Prison Litigation Reform Act ,
Prisoners ,
Reaffirmation ,
SCOTUS
On April 27, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., holding that the annotations to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated are not eligible for copyright protection because the annotations...more
4/28/2020
/ Annotated Case Law ,
Appeals ,
Copyright ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Copyrightable Subject Matter ,
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc ,
Government Edicts Doctrine ,
Legislative Duties ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Statutory Code ,
The Copyright Act
On June 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided McDonough v. Smith, No. 18-485, holding that the statute of limitations for a fabricated-evidence claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 begins to run when the criminal...more
6/21/2019
/ 42 U.S.C. §1983 ,
Acquittals ,
Appeals ,
Cause of Action Accrual ,
Common Law Claims ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Criminal Prosecution ,
False Evidence ,
Loss of Liberty ,
Malicious Prosecution ,
McDonough v Smith ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Time-Barred Claims
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Azar v. Allina Health Services, No. 17–1484, holding that the Department of Health and Human Services failed to follow required notice-and-comment procedures when it decided to count...more
6/5/2019
/ Administrative Procedure Act ,
Azar v Allina Health Services ,
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ,
Hospitals ,
Low-Income Issues ,
Medicare ,
Medicare Advantage ,
Medicare Part A ,
Medicare Part C ,
Notice and Comment ,
Pay Reductions ,
Provider Payments ,
Reaffirmation ,
Retroactive Application ,
SCOTUS ,
Substantive Rule ,
Vacated
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, No. 18-525, holding that the charge-filing precondition to suit of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not a...more
6/5/2019
/ Affirmative Defenses ,
Amended Complaints ,
Appeals ,
Charge-Filing Preconditions ,
Civil Rights Act ,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ,
Forfeiture ,
Fort Bend County Texas v Davis ,
Jurisdictional Requirements ,
Mandatory Claim-Processing Rules ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reasonable Accommodation ,
Religious Discrimination ,
Retaliation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Title VII ,
Waiver Rule ,
Wrongful Termination
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, No. 18-315, holding that the limitations period in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) applies to False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuits in which...more
5/14/2019
/ Appeals ,
Cause of Action Accrual ,
Cochise Consultancy Inc v United States ex rel Hunt ,
Dismissals ,
False Claims Act (FCA) ,
Intervenors ,
Limitation Periods ,
Qui Tam ,
Reaffirmation ,
Relators ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Statute of Limitations
On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, No. 17-1307, holding that a business engaged in only nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a “debt collector” for all purposes under the...more
On March 19, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., No. 16-1498, holding that an 1855 treaty between the U.S. and the Yakama Nation exempts a tribal-owned company from...more
3/20/2019
/ Fuel Tax ,
Highways ,
Imports ,
Preemption ,
Reaffirmation ,
Right to Travel ,
SCOTUS ,
State Taxes ,
Tax Exempt ,
Treaties ,
Tribal Lands ,
WA Supreme Court ,
Washington State Department of Licensing v Cougar Den Inc
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