On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court clarified the standing requirements for false advertising claims brought under the Lanham Act.
It is a little unusual for the United States Supreme Court to consider two important labor cases during its’ term, but that is exactly what legal analysts will be saying come June.
Counterintuitive as it may seem, courts can exert significant influence by deciding not to consider a case. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania did just that…
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719 (docket). The question presented is:
Whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is alleging the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?
Consumer products companies are frequently the targets of nationwide class actions, and a common defense strategy includes removing these cases to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. ”
In an 8-0 decision issued March 25, 2014 in United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court held that severance payments made to employees who are involuntarily terminated are taxable wages for the purposes of withholding Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) taxes, i.e., Social Security and Medicare.
The District Court held that the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013), is not an “other paper,” which could make a previously un-removable case removable under 28 U.S.C §1446(b)(3).
Supreme Court to Decide Whether All Evidence Supporting Removal Under the Class Action Fairness Act Must Be Submitted with the Notice of Removal
To remove a civil action from state court to federal court, the defendant must “file … a notice of removal … containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.”
The Supreme Court struck down individual donor limits to political candidates and party committees in the name of free speech last week, but the 5 – 4 ruling highlights the division on the future of campaign finance laws.
The Supreme Court decided last week in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission that aggregate donation limits, which capped the total on how much someone can contribute to candidates and political parties, per election, violated the free speech protections of the First Amendment, 572 U.S. ____(2014).