On December 18, the Fourth Circuit gave appellants an early Christmas/timely Hanukkah/late Ramadan present when it clarified the requirements for a notice of appeal in Jackson v. Lightsey, Case No. 13-7291. Jackson is a deliberate-indifference Section 1983 action.
In Wisconsin, a party seeking judicial review of an administrative decision must, within 30 days of service of the agency decision, file a petition for review in the trial court and serve the agency with a copy of the petition.
On December 3, 2014, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Young v. UPS, which, as previously discussed on this blog, may clarify an employer’s obligation under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) to provide an accommodation to pregnant workers.
Seventh Circuit Chides Plaintiffs’ Lawyers for Selling Out Class Members, Shedding “Crocodile Tears” in Class Action Settlement
In most settlement negotiations, it is taken for granted that the parties’ self-interest will lead them to advocate aggressively for their positions and against their opponents. After all, every dollar that the plaintiff obtains is one more dollar that the defendant must give up.
In this divorce case, the Wife appealed the district court’s division of the marital estate and imputation of income to her. She argued the district court abused its discretion in five ways.
Sixth Circuit Follows the Majority of Circuits in Holding That Informal Warnings Do Not Satisfy Rule 11’s Safe Harbor Provision
Until last Friday, the question of whether an informal warning letter satisfied Rule 11’s safe harbor provision was unsettled in the Sixth Circuit.
In the following guest post, Susanna Buergel, Charles Davidow, Andrew Ehrlich, Brad Karp, Daniel Kramer, Richard Rosen and Audra Soloway, all of whom are litigation partners at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP who are members of the Firm’s Securities Litigation Practice group explain the significance of the Second Circuit’s decision United States v. Newman.
The Supreme Court granted cert last Friday in the case of Bullard v. Hyde Park Savings Bank, in which the First Circuit held that an order denying confirmation of a reorganization plan is not a “final judgment” and therefore not appealable.
Get it? It’s a goose case.
In the closing days of its November term, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to decide an issue of potentially enormous consequence to a major Illinois utility, agreeing to review an order of the Illinois Commerce Commission requiring a major utility to enter into sourcing agreements with FutureGen 2.0, a non-profit corporation organized to create a coal-fueled near-zero emissions electric power plant.