The Supreme Court’s May 30 opinion in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell reaffirms that a State’s court system cannot exercise “general” or “all-purpose” personal jurisdiction over a corporation unless the company is incorporated in that State, has its principal place of business in that State, or otherwise is “at home” in that State. See Daimler […]
Supreme Court Derails Forum Shoppers Read More »
On April 17 the Supreme Court — in its final Order prior to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s inaugural session — declined to review the constitutionality of New York Judiciary Law § 470. Under that law, as recently interpreted by the New York Court of Appeals, a New York bar member residing anywhere other than in New York
Supreme Court Won’t Review Discriminatory Law-Practice Statute Read More »
My eyes usually glaze over about halfway through the opening paragraph of any judicial decision involving patent infringement. But the Supreme Court’s March 21, 2017 opinion in SGA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, No. 15-927, kept my attention. The issue was whether the equitable defense of “laches” can bar a patent infringement suit
Supreme Court Scratches Laches Read More »
Perhaps in anticipation of soon being joined by a ninth Justice, the Supreme Court agreed in mid-January to decide a number of litigation-related issues that may directly affect U.S. businesses: Because each of these issues has the potential to affect a broad range of U.S. businesses and industries, each of the Supreme Court cases in which they
The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15513 (Dec. 6, 2016), is a disappointingly narrow decision. It merely holds that dismissal of a False Claims Act qui tam suit for violation of the “seal” provision, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), is not mandatory.
Supreme Court’s FCA Seal Violation Opinion Lacks Needed Guidance Read More »
What do prescription drugs, motor boats, pesticides, automobiles, medical devices, locomotives, cigarettes, vaccines, and oil tankers have in common? During the past 25 years, each has been the subject of at least one Supreme Court opinion concerning federal preemption of state-law product liability claims. No uniform rule has emerged from those opinions (e.g., there is
Supreme Court Punts On Another Federal Preemption Product-Liability Conundrum Read More »
The unresolved question debated at the November 1 U.S. Supreme Court hearing in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15-513, involves the standard for dismissing a False Claims Act qui tam suit where the relator (i.e., whistleblower plaintiff), or the relator’s attorney, willfully violates the statute’s mandatory seal
Justices Should Consider Harm To Qui Tam Defendants Read More »
The Iraq War is still being fought, but in the federal courts rather than on foreign battlefields. On October 21, 2016, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued what is probably the most refined and nuanced opinion of any federal court on the question of whether the political question
Abu Ghraib Contractor Still Faces Potential Tort Liability for Alleged Detainee Abuse Read More »
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, No. 15-7 (June 16, 2016), will trigger weeks of commentary, months of debate, and years of litigation on how courts should apply the “implied false certification theory” of False Claims Act liability. But as discussed below, I believe that there
Text Trumps Policy in Supreme Court False Claims Act “Implied Certification” Decision Read More »
According to Webster’s, a “switcheroo” is “an unexpected reversal or change.” When a federal department or agency pulls a switcheroo on the public or an industry by abruptly reversing a long-held interpretation of a key statutory phrase, there can be serious economic or other consequences for those who are affected. In an opinion issued on
Labor Department “Switcheroo” Gets No Respect From Supreme Court Read More »
