US Appellate Court Judge Suggests Development of Process for Certifying Questions of Law Between National Courts
Will we see development of a process for national courts to certify questions of law to each other? One federal appellate court judge in the US recently called for such a process, and did so in a concurring opinion. The concurrence is set out below in full.
On May 20, the Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former Georgia Southern University football player who suffered injuries after the football coach allegedly forced team members to fight one another during practice.
On Tuesday, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Best Buy’s policy of swiping drivers’ licenses when customers return purchases does not violate the federal Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (“DPPA”).
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that pleading a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 does not require a showing of defendant’s knowledge of false statements in offering documents, thereby significantly relaxing the pleading requirements in that circuit.
We’ve known since the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in General Telephone Company of Southwest v. Falcon that in determining whether the prerequisites for class certification have been satisfied, a court must engage in a “rigorous analysis.” But what does that mean?
On May 28, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Docket No. 12-1036, a price-fixing case between the State of Mississippi and a number of electronics companies.
Fifth Circuit Affirms $44.4 Million Jury Award for Trade Secret Misappropriation of Software Developed for Oil and Gas Industry
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a jury verdict awarding $26.2 million in compensatory damages and $18.2 million in punitive damages for trade secret misappropriation of software that enabled oil and gas companies to “plan, procure and pay for complex services” online. See Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, LLP, Case No. 11-20816 (5th Cir. May 15, 2013).