The Minnesota Court of Appeals issued a decision this morning unlike any we have previously seen from them.
Various kinds of tax breaks have become a commonplace tool for city, county and state governments to use in competing to lure new businesses into their jurisdiction, or persuade businesses already there to stay or expand.
Illinois Supreme Court Agrees to Decide Whether Date On a Business Letter is Sufficient Notice of Service
Is the date on a business letter sufficient notice of service of an administrative decision to start the clock ticking on a party’s deadline to file for administrative review?
Can the Cook County Board of Commissioners authorize the County Inspector General to issue subpoenas for documents directly to the County’s elected officials, and compel those officials to cooperate with an IG investigation?
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in its admissions policies and procedures by rendering a decision in the second case brought by Abigail Fisher, a white woman who was rejected for admission to UT Austin over eight years ago.
The Federal Circuit threw down the gauntlet, and we are waiting to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take it up.
Recently, in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court provided substantial guidance in an unsettled area of law by holding that, when deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. §505, the Copyright Act’s fee-shifting provision, a court should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party’s position while still taking into account all other circumstances relevant to granting fees.
It’s alliterative, sure, but the truth is nothing could be further from the truth. And representing it that way ignores the thoughtfulness behind the initiative.
In the past two weeks, we’ve reviewed the geographical sources of the California Supreme Court’s civil and criminal dockets between 2005 and 2009.
In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc., v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision, upholding the PTAB’s use of the BRI standard for claim interpretation in IPRs, and determining that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars judicial review of the PTAB’s decision to institute review on grounds not specifically raised in the IPR petition.