In the recent case of Edwards v. Bryson (2013 WL 4504783 (C.A.3 (Pa.) Aug. 26, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit reaffirmed its prior decision in United States v. Moreno (3d Cir. July 3, 2013), in which the court held that a passport will serve as conclusive proof of United States citizenship only if “its holder was actually a citizen of the United States when the passport was issued.”
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral argument in Little River Band of Ottawa Indians v. National Labor Relations Board, a case wherein a tribal government challenges the jurisdiction of the Board over employment by tribes on reservations.
Last week Alison Grant wrote in the Plain Dealer about Eaton Corp.’s latest loss. This one was in North Carolina where Frisby sued Eaton in 2011, as discussed here.
In the litigation business, us lawyers should avoid hyperbole. Unlike the lawyers on television, exagerration is often counter-productive in a real court.
Royal Oakes was quoted extensively in an Oct. 7, 2013, Claims Journal article, California Court Of Appeals Decision Provides Reasoning Behind Punitive Damages Calculations, about a significant insurance case where $19 million in punitive damages were awarded, then later shot down by the California Court of Appeals, which found the verdict excessive. The court capped the award at $350,000.
On August 15, the Court of Appeals issued four opinions…
The Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Williamson v. Recovery Limited Partnership begins with a fascinating account of a shipwreck that ultimately spawned decades of litigation: “This appeal is the latest skirmish in the legal battle over the treasures recovered from the 19th century steamship S.S. Central America, a battle that has spanned three decades in numerous courts.
The Supreme Court’s 2013 term just began but it is already shaping up to be an important one for power plant owners and operators. Three points stand out: First, on October 7, the Court denied cert. in Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. EPA, a case in which several power companies were challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) current approach to regulating air emissions during startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) events.