Though it makes things less entertaining, it’s probably for the best: when the Supreme Court has a landmark case and industry-shaping issue on its hands, it likes to keep its opinions as narrow and specific as possible. Based on what we heard this morning in ABC v. Aereo, the same will likely happen in this case. Though, with SCOTUS oral arguments, you never really do know what they mean.
Oral arguments took place in ABC v. Aereo before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. According the members of the media, the Supreme Court expressed some doubt about how Aereo has been avoiding copyright laws but overall gave no indication of how they will rule.
The NLRB is now 0 for 2 in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a victory for employers, the Fifth Circuit recently refused to rehear (pdf) its December 2013 decision rejecting an NLRB ruling that questioned the wide-spread practice of having employees sign arbitration agreements that bar class or collective actions.
Vacationers Are Welcome, Property Restrictions Aren’t: Washington’s Supreme Court Narrowly Reads Covenants
In Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Cmtys. Ass ‘n, the Washington Supreme Court determined that homeowners may offer their home to short-term vacation renters without violating community covenants restricting lots to single-family residential use.
The Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal this week in two cases of interest to Canadian business.
Stranger Than Fiction: Attorney Who Formed a Business Named, of All Things, “RPC LLC” is (Unsurprisingly) Disbarred for Repeatedly Violating the RPCs
The Washington Supreme Court unanimously held in In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Robert B. Jackson (No. 201,017-2) that substantial evidence supported the hearing officer’s findings that Robert Jackson engaged in fraud, deceit, conflicts of interest, and other serious ethics violations and that disbarment was the appropriate sanction.
Fresh on the heels of signs during the Iskanian oral argument that the California Supreme Court might at least partially fall in line behind the rule of Concepcion (subscr. req.), we received a reminder that arbitration clauses continue to receive an uncertain reception in the Courts of Appeal.
In the only civil review grant from last week’s conference, the California Supreme Court agreed to review the Third District’s decision in Larkin v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. Larkin involves an issue of what temporary disability payments might be available to full-time, salaried peace officers.
Cases interpreting state constitutions do not typically make national headlines the way that cases interpreting the federal Constitution do, but perhaps they should.