To sit or not to sit, that is the question. And now the California Supreme Court has given us an answer.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has issued decisions on two of its major class action cases this term, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez and Tyson Foods v. Bouaphekeo (see January 20, 2016 blog and May 5, 2016 blog), one other previously argued case remains undecided, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins.
Rah! Rah! Sis Boom Bah! Supreme Court to Decide Whether Copyright Act Protects Cheerleader Uniform Designs
In August 2015, the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Varsity Brands, Inc.. v. Star Athletica, LLC, 799 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2015), that the stripes, chevrons and other visual elements that appear on a cheerleading uniform could be protectable under United States copyright law.
Fourth Circuit Decision Highlights Need for Employers to Assess Whether Training Time Should Be Compensated
Whether time spent in training is compensable time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is an issue that the courts have addressed in a variety of contexts.
The Third Circuit’s decision in In re Trump Entertainment presents interesting opportunities for employers with expired collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) seeking to reorganize their companies under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Law enforcement agencies’ policies, in accordance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, uniformly require that force used by officers be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Second Circuit: Intent to Harm is Not Required for Criminal Conviction Under Investment Advisers Act
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit yesterday affirmed the fraud conviction of a registered investment adviser and held that proof of intent to harm is not an element of a criminal conviction under section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. §80b-6 (“IAA”).
Competitor’s Claims That Broker Engaged in Unfair Business Practices Involve Professional Services and Are Not Precluded by the “Unfair Competition of Any Type” Exclusion
Applying Massachusetts law, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that unfair business practices claims brought against an insured insurance broker by a competitor involved professional services within the scope of its professional liability policy and that an exclusion for “unfair competition of any type” did not apply because the allegations did not involve consumer confusion. Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Herbert H. Landy Ins. Agency, 2016 WL 1566644 (1st Cir. April 19, 2016).
On Friday, the Sixth Circuit reinstated a $15.6 million jury verdict awarded to Cranpark, Inc. in its promissory estoppel suit against Rogers Group, Inc. (“RGI”).