Lawyers USA Your Business Partner

WASHINGTON – The year 2009 brought U.S. Supreme Court rulings that affected the way litigators work in a host of ways, changing civil pleadings standards, criminal forensic evidence rules, employment bias evidentiary standards and other crucial legal rules.

Here are five of the most consequential cases the Court issued this year.

1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

After the court quietly announced a new pleading standard in the 2007 case Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, litigators were left to wonder if the ruling applied beyond the antitrust arena.

But the Court’s ruling in Iqbal in May put an exclamation point on the previous ruling, clarifying that the previous “notice pleading” standard had been replaced by a tougher “plausibility” standard for plaintiffs in federal courts.

To date the case has been cited thousands of times by courts deciding whether plaintiffs have stated facts sufficient to withstand a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, and members of Congress have held a host of hearings and introduced legislation to overturn the ruling.

More on the Iqbal ruling here.

2. Wyeth v. Levine

The March case held that federal law does not automatically preempt state law tort claims over prescriptions medication.

Not only did the ruling allow a number of similar drug suits to move forward, striking down a common defense asserted by drug companies defending the claims, but the language of the Levine ruling also supported trial lawyers’ contention that such suits provided a needed check on drug safety.

“State tort suits uncover unknown drug hazards and provide incentives for drug manufacturers to disclose safety risks promptly,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the 6-3 majority. “They also serve a distinct compensatory function that may motivate injured persons to come forward with information.”

More on the Levine ruling here.

3. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts

In June the Court held that the Confrontation Clause requires analysts who prepare crime law reports submitted as evidence to be made available to testify at trial, a ruling that affected how criminal trials involving drug and other offenses are prosecuted across the nation.

The decision was hailed by defense attorneys who say it will help protect against wrongful convictions based on incorrect or shoddy criminal lab analyses. But prosecutors claim that the rule will tax their already strapped resources and ultimately lead to more cases against alleged drug offenders being dropped altogether.

The ruling sent judicial rule makers and state legislators in Massachusetts and elsewhere scrambling to rewrite their rules of criminal procedure, causing delays in criminal cases that turn on forensic evidence.

But the issue isn’t fully settled. This term, the Court will test a potential limit on the Melendez-Diaz decision when it takes up the case Briscoe v. Virginia, which asks whether prosecutors may introduce forensic laboratory reports into evidence without the testimony of the analyst if the defendant has a right to call the analyst as a witness.

More on the Melendez-Diaz decision can be found here.

4. Gross v. FBL Financial Services

In a surprise ruling in June, the Court stepped beyond the question presented in the case and held that employees bringing age bias claims under the ADEA must show that age was the but-for cause of an adverse employment decision, eliminating “mixed-motive” age bias claims under the act.

The ruling caught attorneys and Congress by surprise, with employee-side lawyers voicing strong concerns that the Gross ruling – coupled with the heightened pleading standard announced in Iqbal – would make bringing age discrimination claims all but impossible since the evidence of wrongdoing is usually in the control of the employer.

The case also spurred legislation seeking to allow plaintiffs to bring age discrimination claims where age was a motivating, if not exclusive, factor in workplace age discrimination.

More on the Gross case can be found here.

5. Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co.

The June ruling that an elected judge should recuse himself to from a case involving a hefty donor to his campaign has had an impact in some of the 28 states that hold contested elections for judges, as well as in Congress, which is searching for a way to deal with the recusal issue in federal courts.

The ruling has caused courts in a number of states to consider rule changes that would, among other things, allow a judge’s decision not to recuse to be reviewed by another judge.

It also caught the attention of the U.S. Judicial Conference, which could issue new rules that regulate when federal judges not bound by the ruling must step aside to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

More coverage of Caperton can be found here.

Questions or comments can be directed to the writer at: kimberly.atkins@lawyersusaonline.com

Close this Window Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Print RSS Feed Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments

Connotea del.icio.us Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Feed Me Links Friendsite folkd.com

Furl Google Hugg Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo linkedin LinksMarker Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace

MyWeb Netvouz Newsvine oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Rojo Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot

Sphere Sphinn Spurl Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Tumblr Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

More »