DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: A Discussion of Kisor v. Wilkie
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
The Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of a high school teacher, finding that the circuit court wrongly dismissed the teacher’s claims against his former employer, who had terminated the teacher after he refused to use a...more
Federal law assigns to U.S. district courts original jurisdiction over all cases under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or relating to Title 11. See 28 U.S.C. §...more
On June 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which has potential ramifications for public schools across the country that are losing money when students attend...more
On June 30, 2020, the Supreme Court, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, ruled that states must allow religious schools to participate in programs that provide scholarships to students attending private schools. ...more
In three cases this term, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the freedom of religious institutions to access government benefits and to make employment decisions....more
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which held that a State’s decision to bar aid to religious schools violates the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution....more
Historically, the ability of a governmental conduit issuer to issue bonds to facilitate a financing for a religious organization or a religiously affiliated school, university, senior housing facility or other nonprofit...more
In another high-profile 5-4 decision, the majority of the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 30 in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that Montana’s Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution when it struck...more
In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, No. 18-1195, 2020 WL 3518364 (June 30, 2020), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Montana could not exclude religious schools from a tax credit scholarship program on the grounds...more
In a 5-4 decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on June 30 that the “no-aid” to sectarian schools provision, in Article X, Section 6, of the Montana Constitution, which was used...more
On June 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, No. 18-1195, holding that if a state subsidizes private education, the Free Exercise Clause does not allow the state to deny that...more
In In re Troy S. Poe Trust, trustees of a trust that was embroiled in litigation filed suit to modify the trust to increase the number of trustees and change the method for trustees to vote on issues. No. 08-18-00074-CV, 2019...more
The Kentucky Court of Appeals just held that non-lawyers may no longer represent employers in unemployment proceedings, ruling that such a practice is unconstitutional. As a result, you must immediately adjust any business...more
The Supreme Court of Alabama (“Court”) in an August 29 opinion addressed an inverse condemnation action against an Alabama agency. See Portersville Bay Oyster Co., v. Christopher Blankenship, No. 1161101, 2018 WL 4124504...more
Earlier this month, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals issued a decision that threatens the enforceability of contractual provisions waiving the right to a jury trial. In Home Vest Capital, LLC v. Retirement Application...more
Valley Forge Towers Apartments N, L.P. v. Upper Merion Area School Dist., 2017 Pa. LEXIS 1520, 163 A.3d 962 (Pa. July 5, 2017). (The Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that school district’s tax assessment appeal policy...more
The Texas Constitution provides that “[n]o person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made.” Tex. Const. art. I, § 17. The Texas Supreme Court has...more