“[T]he government’s warrantless procurement of the CSLI [cell-site location information] was an unreasonable search in violation of Appellants’ Fourth Amendment Rights,” a divided panel of the federal appeals court in Richmond has held, in conflict with its sister circuits, in a case where CSLI helped the prosecution establish the suspects’ location before and after robberies of fast food restaurants and other businesses.
On August 6, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a federal district court decision invalidating South Carolina’s statute banning automated calls for commercial or political purposes.
If you try to prevent or end workplace discrimination as part of your job, is it legal for your employer retaliate against you?
On August 6, 2015, the Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision that the South Carolina anti-robocall statute was unconstitutional.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently upheld the judgment against Tuomey Healthcare System, Inc. (Tuomey), in a qui tam False Claims Act case predicated on Stark Law violations.
Professional liability insurance policyholders often breathe a sigh of relief when their insurer begins funding the costs of defending against a civil claim or government investigation.
In a case we have previously blogged about several times due to spoliation sanctions imposed on the EEOC – most recently here – the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a ruling out of the Middle District of North Carolina and upheld the summary judgment dismissal of an ADA lawsuit brought by the EEOC.
The Fourth Circuit recently issued a decision affirming a district court’s order dismissing a false advertising claim against GNC and Rite Aid relating to several supplement products containing glucosamine and chondroitin, as well as other ingredients.
KBR V. US Ex Rel. Carter—a Plain-meaning Approach to the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act and the False Claims Act First-to-file Bar
The Supreme Court’s decision in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, No. 12-1497 (U.S. May 26, 2015) [pdf], holds that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act applies only to criminal offenses.
Federal prosecutors have come in for considerable criticism over their failure to press criminal charges against executives of financial institutions whose stumbles led to the global financial crisis.