There is an art to writing amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs. Capital Appellate Advocacy’s Larry Ebner, who serves DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar as Chair of its Amicus Committee, has written an article in the February 2017 edition of For The Defense, “Learning the High Art of Amicus Brief Writing.” The article — which has been […]
Learning the High Art of Amicus Brief Writing Read More »
Under FIFRA, the federal pesticide law, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies both have authority to regulate the sale and use of agricultural, industrial, structural, and consumer pesticides, but only EPA can regulate the content and format of nationally uniform pesticide product labeling. Emboldened by a 1991 Supreme Court decision, and despite state-imposed preemption
It’s Time To Fix FIFRA Preemption Read More »
FIFRA is the comprehensive federal statute that for the past 70 years has regulated “pesticides”—a term which encompasses a broad range of agricultural, professional, industrial, and consumer pest control products. One of the most persistent as well as hotly contested areas of pesticide regulation involves the subject of “preemption”—the supremacy of federal law over
Is It Finally Time To Fix FIFRA Preemption? Read More »
The Supreme Court’s June 19 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court reaffirms well-established principles for state court exercise of specific (case-linked) personal jurisdiction. As a practical matter, the opinion curtails forum shopping for plaintiff-friendly courts in connection with tort actions brought by multi-state groups of plaintiffs against companies that are not “at home” in a forum state.
Tough Times for Forum Shoppers Read More »
DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar files amicus briefs at both the certiorari and merits stages in cases raising legal issues that are exceptionally important to the civil defense bar and its clients. I have the privilege of serving as Chair of the DRI Amicus Committee, which reviews requests for DRI amicus support. The attached
Update: DRI’s Supreme Court Amicus Program Read More »
Subrogation of insureds’ third-party claims is not a subject that excites too many lawyers. But in Coventry Health Care of Missouri Inc. v. Nevils, No. 16-149, decided on April 18, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a subrogation-related opinion that will be of interest to anyone who tracks the Court’s federal preemption jurisprudence. In particular, the
A Closer Look At “Preemptive” Federal Contract Terms Read More »
The only thing predictable about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions on federal preemption — a subject that strikes at the heart of federalism — is the odd way that the Justices spell “pre-emption.” While the Court’s implied preemption (field preemption and conflict preemption) case law is particularly difficult to reconcile, the Court in recent years
Can Federal Contract Requirements Preempt State Law? Read More »
Are Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) administrative enforcement proceedings constitutional? According to a recent, well-reasoned opinion issued by the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Bandimere v. SEC, 844 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2016), the answer is no. Bandimere focuses on SEC Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), who preside over in-house, trial-type proceedings
Unconstitutionally Appointed Administrative Law Judges Continue to Haunt SEC Read More »
At the invitation of The Federalist Society, Larry Ebner, founder of Capital Appellate Advocacy PLLC, conducted a 45-minute teleforum on the shortcomings and practical impact of the Supreme Court’s December 6, 2016 opinion in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, No.15-513. The Court unanimously held that dismissal is not required
Podcast: Supreme Court Opinion Undermines Integrity of FCA Qui Tam Scheme 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 »
