In law school, we’re all taught the basics of binding versus nonbinding precedent. Case law from within the applicable jurisdiction is generally binding, while case law from other jurisdictions is merely persuasive. Less...more
It seems obvious that a named plaintiff must be the correct plaintiff in order for it to have standing to move forward with a lawsuit. But figuring out the identity of the correct plaintiff is not always as easy as it should...more
Recently, the Public Access Counselor (PAC) issued a binding opinion concerning the Open Meetings Act (OMA). In the decision, the PAC found that the public body violated the OMA by holding an improper meeting when it hosted a...more
Recently, the Public Access Counselor (PAC) issued a binding opinion concerning the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In the decision, the PAC upholds a school’s decision to utilize the Section 7(1)(f) (predecisional)...more
The Michigan Supreme Court has a well-known practice of issuing peremptory orders on pending applications for leave to appeal that decide the application without actually granting leave. Consider this order in DiLuigi v RBS...more
When there is a right, there is a remedy—or so the maxim goes. But when a state infringes upon your copyright, such a remedy may be more difficult to obtain. Just a year ago, the Supreme Court held in Allen v. Cooper that the...more
In a remarkable decision, Allen v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court held on March 23 that the state of North Carolina can lawfully plunder a videographer’s copyrighted videos and photographs of the recovery of Blackbeard’s...more
First Circuit: Two affiliated funds did not form an implied partnership liable for pension obligations of a portfolio company, but private equity funds can still be subject to controlled group pension liability...more
The Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor was once again busy during 2019, issuing binding decisions of interest to public entities governed by the Illinois Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act....more
Congress is poised to overturn two recent judicial interpretations of the whistleblower protections of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank). On Sept. 23, 2019, the Whistleblower...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a long-awaited decision with significant impact for the private equity industry, in Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, the United States Court of...more
The First Circuit, however, disagreed with the lower court. Analyzing the multi-factor test for establishing partnership status under federal tax court precedent and noting the lack of other formal guidance from regulators or...more
At the end of the Supreme Court’s most recent term, the Court released its long-awaited ruling in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 2051 (June 20, 2019)—a case that could have carried...more
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits unsolicited calls, text messages and faxes; it’s a federal statute that provides for statutory damages between $500-$1,500 per violation. With the speed and ease (and...more
In its long-awaited ruling addressing whether the Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act) requires district courts to accept the FCC's legal interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the TCPA), the...more
TCPA litigators have been closely monitoring the U.S. Supreme Court's docket waiting for a ruling in the PDR Network case. At stake is what kind of judicial deference should be given to the FCC's interpretation of the...more
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded for consideration to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit two preliminary questions antecedent to the main issue of whether federal district courts must defer to the Federal...more
In November 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court had granted certiorari in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., to decide whether the Hobbs Act required the district court to accept the Federal Communications...more
Are district courts prohibited in every instance from considering challenges to the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”)’s interpretation of certain provisions in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act – or can district...more
In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal district court was not necessarily bound by the Federal Communications Commission’s prior interpretation of a federal statute over which the agency has...more
Dodging the question of whether the Hobbs Act requires a federal court to accept the 2006 Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Order that provides the legal interpretation for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),...more
On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in PDR v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic. The Court was expected to provide greater clarity about the extent to which litigants can challenge the Federal...more
On June 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., No. 17-1705, holding that whether the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2006 order interpreting the...more
It is a busy TCPA news day! The United States Supreme Court has released its decision in PDR Networks, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., a TCPA junk fax class action. The decision is available for download...more