image description

Archives

  • Pregnancy Discrimination Act—Employers’ Obligations to Provide Work Accommodations

    Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12-1226 The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) provides that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). The Supreme Court granted certiorari […]

  • Lanham Act—Preclusive Effect of Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Determinations

    B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., No. 13-352 Under the Lanham Act, the owner of an existing trademark may oppose the registration of a new mark before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) if the proposed new mark is likely to cause confusion with the existing mark. The Lanham Act also authorizes the […]

  • Securities Act of 1933—Misstatements in SEC Registration Statements

    Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, No. 13-435 Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 grants a right of action to investors who allege that they have purchased securities in reliance on a registration statement that “contained an untrue statement of material fact or omitted to state a material fact […]

  • Nondelegation Doctrine—Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act

    Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, No. 13-1080 Amtrak was created by Congress to provide passenger rail service, thus relieving the railroads of their common-carrier obligations to carry passengers and allowing them to concentrate on providing freight-rail services. In most parts of the country, Amtrak does not own its own railroad tracks but […]

  • Administrative Procedure Act—Notice-And-Comment Requirements for Revisions to Agency Interpretations of Federal Regulations

    Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, No. 13-1041 The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) requires agencies to use notice-and-comment rulemaking when issuing regulations within their authority unless the regulations consist of “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” Despite that statutory requirement, the nation’s leading court on administrative law—the U.S. […]

  • Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act—Discriminatory State Taxation

    Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 13-553 The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (the “4-R Act”) prohibits States from imposing any “tax that discriminates against a rail carrier.” 49 U.S.C. § 11501(b)(4). Today, in Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 13-553, the Supreme Court held that a […]

  • Tax Injunction Act—Application to Suits Challenging State Notice And Reporting Requirements

    Direct Marketing Ass’n v. Brohl, No. 13-1032 The Tax Injunction Act provides that “[t]he district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1341. Today, in Direct […]

  • Federal Trade Commission Act—Exemption From Antitrust Laws Under “State Action” Doctrine

    North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, No. 13-534 The judicially created state-action doctrine exempts anticompetitive actions taken by states from the federal antitrust laws. The doctrine also shields municipalities and private parties, but only in limited circumstances. To claim an exemption from the antitrust laws, municipalities must show that their actions reflected […]

  • Collective-Bargaining Agreements—Vesting of Retiree Health-Care Benefits

    M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, No. 13-1010 (described in the May 5, 2014, Docket Report) Employees and unions often enter into collective-bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) that provide employees with health-care benefits upon retirement. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, No. 13-1010, to determine whether those health-care benefits for retirees […]

  • Federal Appellate Jurisdiction—Finality Of Order Dismissing One Among Many Consolidated Cases

    Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., No. 13-1174 (described in the June 30, 2014, Docket Report) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction over “final decisions of the district courts.” Today, the Supreme Court unanimously held that complaints that have been consolidated for purposes of multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) pretrial proceedings “retain[] […]

  • Trademark Tacking—Question of Fact for Jury

    Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, No. 13-1211 (described in the June 23, 2014, Docket Report) To have a protected interest in a trademark, a party must be the first to use it; such a party has “priority” and thus may exclude others from using the mark. To permit a party to update or modernize […]

  • Patent Act—Claim Construction—Standard of Appellate Review

    Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854 (described in the March 31, 2014, Docket Report) In patent litigation, a critical question is often the proper interpretation of terms in a patent claim—a threshold issue that bears substantially on patent validity and patent infringement. Two decades ago, in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., the […]

  • Telecommunications Act—Local Government Permitting for Wireless Service Facilities—Requirement that Denial be “In Writing And Supported By Substantial Evidence”

    T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia, No. 13-975 (described in the May 5, 2014, Docket Report) Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“the Act”) provides that when a local government denies a request to construct or modify a “personal wireless service facility”—such as a cellular tower—its decision must be “in writing […]

  • Truth in Lending Act—Home Loans—Manner of Exercising Right of Rescission

    Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 13-684, (described in the April 28, 2014, Docket Report) The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) gives certain borrowers an unconditional right to rescind a home loan “until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the information and rescission forms” […]

  • Federal Jurisdiction—Class Action Fairness Act—Sufficiency of Jurisdictional Allegations in Removal Notice

    Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, No. 13-719, (described in the April 7, 2014, Docket Report) To remove a civil action from state court to federal court, the defendant must “file … a notice of removal … containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 […]

  • Fair Labor Standards Act—Security Screenings

    Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, No. 13-433, (previously described in the March 3, 2014, Docket Report) The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to compensate employees for the work that they were hired to perform, but it exempts “preliminary” and “postliminary” activities that are not “integral and indispensable” to the employees’ “principal activity or […]