WASHINGTON — Taking up a 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case on an issue dividing the circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a district court’s decision on the merits that leaves unresolved a request for contractual attorney fees is a “final decision” under federal law.
Are disparate impact claims cognizable under the Fair Housing Act?
Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, No. 11-1507. Certiorari
» Continue Reading.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Air Wisconsin could be sued for defamation after a manager reported that a disgruntled pilot had just been fired and might be armed, mentally unstable and traveling as a passenger on a commercial flight.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the litigation exception to a federal privacy law did not allow four South Carolina trial attorneys to obtain the personal information of drivers for the “predominant purpose” of soliciting new clients for consumer lawsuits.
Defendants could not moot a class action alleging unfair debt collection practices by making an offer of settlement that did not completely satisfy the plaintiff’s demands, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in affirming judgment.
In the first week of a high-stakes trial in which the plaintiffs planned to ask a major health corporation for billions of dollars in damages for medical injuries, their lawyers noticed something they had not anticipated: The defendant had launched a website putting its spin on the case.
A plaintiff can sue for violation of his First Amendment rights based on a state statute that requires residents to pay a fee to avoid a required image on the state license plate and forbids covering up the image, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
WASHINGTON – In a decision that seemed designed to carve out a middle ground in the legal battle over whether companies can hold exclusive rights in the use of biological material, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that isolated human genes are not patentable, but synthetically created genetic material may be patented.
A how-to guide has been published by the Federal Trade Commission to help businesses comply with rules requiring a written policy and procedures to prevent and respond to identity theft.