74 Results found for “cases”
  • Fair Housing Act—Standing

    Bank of America Corp. v. Miami, No. 15-1111 Wells Fargo & Co. v. Miami, No. 15-1112 The Fair Housing Act (FHA) permits any “aggrieved person” to sue for housing discrimination. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a person is “aggrieved” for purposes of the FHA whenever he has standing under […]

  • Patent Act—Standard for Enhanced (Willfulness) Damages

    Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., No. 14-1513 A patent infringer is liable for enhanced damages when his infringement is willful. 35 U.S.C. § 284. In In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc), the Federal Circuit adopted a two-part test for determining when additional damages would be assessed: the […]

  • Title VII—Limitations Period for Constructive Discharge Claims

    Green v. Brennan, No. 14-613 A federal civil servant claiming a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must “initiate contact” with the EEOC “within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory.” Today, in an opinion for a six-Justice majority authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme […]

  • Patent Act—Availability of Laches Defense

    SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 15-927 Although the Patent Act has a six-year statutory limitations period for patent infringement claims, the Federal Circuit has historically permitted infringement defendants to invoke the equitable defense of laches to bar claims for money damages, if the plaintiff inexcusably delayed filing suit and […]

  • Class and Collective Actions—Standard for Certification

     Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), a court may certify a suit for damages as a class action when “there are questions of law or fact common to the class” that “predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Similar certification standards apply when a plaintiff seeks […]

  • Federal Diversity Jurisdiction—Citizenship of Unincorporated Entities

    Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 14-1382 Today, the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, an unincorporated legal entity has the citizenship of its members (including its shareholders)—even if the entity is labeled a “trust.” Federal courts have jurisdiction over controversies between “citizens” of different States. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). For […]

  • Statutes of Limitations—Equitable Tolling

    Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, No. 14-510 A statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling if a litigant demonstrates that, despite pursuing his rights diligently, some extraordinary obstacle prevented timely filing of a complaint. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court today clarified how courts are to determine […]

  • Class Actions And Federal Jurisdiction—Effect of Unaccepted Offers of Judgment on Mootness

    Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, No. 14-857 Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “cases” and “controversies.” As the Supreme Court recently explained in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013), a lawsuit does not present an Article III case or controversy and “must be dismissed as moot” […]

  • Federal Arbitration Act—Preemption of State Law

    DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, No. 14-462 In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), the Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts state-law rules barring enforcement of an arbitration agreement if the agreement does not permit the parties to utilize class procedures in arbitration or in court. Before Concepcion, […]

  • Federal Power Act—Preemption

    Hughes v. PPL Energyplus, No. 14-614 CPV Maryland v. PPL Energyplus, No. 14-623 The Federal Power Act splits authority among states, utilities, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). States regulate generation facilities and retail rates, while FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over regulation of wholesale rates. Maryland entered into an agreement with CPV Maryland LLC […]

  • Patents—Enhanced Damages for Willful Patent Infringement

    Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., No. 14-1513 Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 14-1520 Upon a finding of willful patent infringement, the Patent Act gives a court discretion to increase damages to up to three times the amount found by the jury or assessed by the court. To assess a damages multiplier, the […]

  • Shapiro v. McManus (U.S. Supreme Court)

    The Three-Judge Court Act provides that a special “district court of three judges” shall hear cases that “challenge the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts.”  The single judge to whom a case is initially referred may decline to convene a three-judge court if “he determines that three judges are not required.” In Goosby v. […]

  • Due Process and Equal Protection—Right of Same-Sex Couples To Marry

    Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556 (previously described in the January 20, 2015, Docket Report) Two years ago, in United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, the United States Supreme Court invalidated Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which provided that federal law did not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples. The Court held […]

  • Fair Housing Act—Disparate-Impact Claims

    Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., No. 13-1371 Claims of discrimination based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics may rest on a claim of disparate treatment, which requires proof that the defendant had a discriminatory purpose or motive; or of disparate impact, which requires proof that a facially […]

  • Affordable Care Act—Availability of Tax Credits

    King v. Burwell, No. 14-114 (previously described in the November 7, 2014, Docket Report) The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) created statewide health insurance exchanges. Individuals who don’t have employer-provided insurance are now generally required to obtain qualifying health insurance coverage or to pay a tax penalty. Low-income individuals who do not qualify for […]

  • Class Actions And Collective Actions—Class-Certification Standards

    Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may not certify a damages lawsuit as a class action unless “there are questions of law or fact common to the class” that “predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) imposes similar certification requirements on collective […]

  • Bankruptcy—Voidability Of Underwater Mortgage Liens

    Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a creditor’s claim is a “secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property”—that is, it is a secured claim for an amount equal to the present value of the collateral—and is an “unsecured claim” for the […]

  • Bankruptcy—Powers Of Bankruptcy Courts

    Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935 (previously described in the July 1, 2014, Docket Report) The Supreme Court held in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594, 2620 (2011), that bankruptcy courts “lack[] the constitutional authority to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process […]

  • False Claims Act—Wartime Suspension Of Limitations And “First To File” Rule

    Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. v. United States ex rel. Carter, No. 12-1497 (previously described in the July 1, 2014, Docket Report) Government contractors and health-care companies have become increasingly concerned about the application of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (“WSLA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3287, and the Department of Justice’s and […]

  • Justiciability—Mootness—Effect of Offer of Judgment Prior To Class Certification

    Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to “cases” and “controversies.” The Supreme Court has held that “‘an actual controversy … be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.’” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997). Accordingly, “[i]f […]