Because my practice focuses on complex commercial disputes–especially cases involving antitrust, oil and gas, and patents–I keep daily track of important decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the highest appeals courts in Delaware, New York, and Texas.
Because my practice focuses on complex commercial disputes–especially cases involving antitrust, oil and gas, and patents–I keep daily track of important decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals.
- Federal Circuit grants Commerce Secretary broad power to remove IPR judges to clean up appointments clause mess.
- Receipt of credit report by person who doesn’t have authorization counts as Article III injury for standing purposes.
In Preparing Difficult Witnesses for Trial — Part 1, we looked at the four major types of trial witnesses. We also sketched “some of the more significant ethical considerations that govern your dealings with each category”. We then took “a short and non-exhaustive look at the two major privileges that trial lawyers deal with: the lawyer-client privilege and the lawyer work-product doctrine.”
In this post, we’ll cover the necessity for getting really ready and something you may find surprising — the importance of caring.…
For your client to win at trial, the trial lawyer in you must tell a human story, one that moves jurors to decide in your client’s favor. Flesh-and-blood witnesses fill essential roles in the drama. So-so ones will turn the story to mush, and bad ones will allow your friend on the other side to beat you and your client about the head and neck with it. Difficult witnesses – DWs – therefore pose a risk you must use all your talents and powers to manage.
How can you prepare DWs for their potentially pivotal turn on the courtroom stage? In this series of posts, I offer thoughts from 33 years of trying cases.…
The number of companies that can bring treble-damages claims against drug manufacturers for violating federal antitrust law has dwindled. The scarcity has grown so acute that last week it crossed an existential threshold.…
For more than 40 years, you could wait (and wait and wait) to decide whether or not to opt out of a class action in order to pursue your own individual case. You didn’t have to squawk until (1) you got formal notice of your right to remove yourself from the class and (b) you failed to timely respond by saying “I opt out. Leave me alone. I would rather do it myself! More money for me!!”
But the thing that gave you leisure — American Pipe tolling — went partially poof last week. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 (with Gorsuch in the role of Scalia) that tolling may apply to a statute of “limitations” but doesn’t stop the tick-tock under a statute of “repose”. California Public Employees’ Retirement Sys. v. ANZ Securities, Inc., No. 16-373 (U.S. June 26, 2017).
Wake up, people! You may need to move fast.