Lawyers USA Your Business Partner

CIVIL PRACTICE 

Published: May 21, 2012

Tags: civil practice

A defendant that prevailed in a personal injury case filed in federal court could not recover its costs for translat­ing documents from Japanese to English.

See “Party can’t recover cost of translating documents”

U.S. Supreme Court. Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., No. 10-1472. May 21, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3819.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS 

Published: May 21, 2012

Children conceived by in vitro fertilization after a wage earner’s death are not entitled to Social Security benefits –  only children supported during the parent’s lifetime may collect benefits.

See “Posthumously conceived kids not entitled to benefits”

U.S. Supreme Court. Astrue v. Capato, No. 11-159. May 21, 2011. Lawyers USA No. 993-3817.

IMMIGRATION 

Published: May 21, 2012

The Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that a parent’s years of residency are not imputed to a child is a permissible construction of federal law.

See “Parent’s years of residency not imputed to alien child.”

U.S. Supreme Court. Holder v. Gutierrez and Holder v. Sawyers, Nos. 10-1542 and 10-1543. May 21, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3818.

BANKRUPTCY 

Published: May 14, 2012

The federal income tax liability resulting from the sale of a farm after a Chapter 12 bankruptcy filing is not “incurred by the estate” under §503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and thus is neither collectible nor dischargeable in the bankruptcy plan.

See “Farm sale income tax not dischargeable in bankruptcy.”

U.S. Supreme Court. Hall v. U.S., No. 10-875. May 14, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3040.

TAXATION 

Published: April 25, 2012

A taxpayer who understated its gross income by overstating its basis in sold property is not subject to an extended six-year assessment period.

U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. v. Home Concrete & Supply, No. 11-139. April 25, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3752.

HABEAS CORPUS 

Published: April 24, 2012

Tags: habeas corpus, Supreme Court

Courts of appeals, like district courts, have the authority, although not the obligation, to raise a forfeited timeliness defense on their own initiative in exceptional cases.

U.S. Supreme Court. Wood v. Milyard, No. 10-9995. April 24, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3749.

PATENT LAW 

Published: April 18, 2012

There are no limitations on a patent applicant’s ability to introduce new evidence in a supplemental proceeding beyond those already present in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

U.S. Supreme Court. Kappos v. Hyatt, No. 10-1219. April 18, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3736.

TORTURE LAW 

Published: April 18, 2012

As used in the Torture Victim Protection Act, the term “individual” encompasses only natural persons. Consequently, the Act does not impose liability against organizations.

U.S. Supreme Court. Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, No. 11-88. April 18, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3735.

PATENT LAW 

Published: April 17, 2012

Tags: patent, Supreme Court

A generic drug manufacturer may employ the counterclaim provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act to force correction of a use code that inaccurately describes the brand’s patent as covering a particular method of using a drug.

U.S. Supreme Court. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, No. 10-844. April 17, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3730.

CIVIL RIGHTS 

Published: April 17, 2012

Tags: qualified immunity, §1983

A private lawyer can claim qualified immunity from a suit under §1983 over his actions in representing a public employer in an internal affairs investigation.

See “Private lawyer is immune from suit under §1983”

U.S. Supreme Court. Filarsky v. Delia, No. 10-1018. April 17, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3729.