Firm: All
Practice Industry: Government & Public Sector, Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals, Insurance
Region: All
Country/ State: All
Tag: All
Beccar Varela | April 2020

Supreme Court's Order No. 13/2020: Extension of the extraordinary judicial recess. Within the state of sanitary emergency declared regarding COVID-19 and the mandatory social, preventive isolation measure duly decreed, the Supreme Court has adopted different measures within the National Judicial Branch, consistent with the National Executive Branch provisions and the recommendations of the national sanitary authority. In order to align with Decree No ...

Dykema | June 2022

Hidden among its flurry of end-of-term blockbusters, on June 27, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-awaited opinion inRuan v. United States. InRuan,the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whatmens reaa physician must possess to be guilty of illegally distributing controlled substances through the use of allegedly improper prescriptions ...

Buchalter | June 2023

June 5, 2023 By: Joshua Robbins and Stephanie Shea While we wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the fate of the Chevron doctrine governing courts’ deference to agencies’ interpretations of law, its recent decision in another case has flown under the radar. In Calcutt, III v. FDIC, 598 U.S ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | June 2021

On Wednesday, June 23, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a much-anticipated decision regarding schools’ regulation of off-campus speech. The Court held that while schools may discipline students for some off-campus speech, their ability to do so is much more limited than for on-campus speech. B.L. was a student at Mahanoy Area High School and cheered on the junior varsity team during her freshman year ...

Dykema | January 2023

Lawyers and clients, take note: on January 9, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on probably one of the most consequential cases on the scope of the attorney-client privilege in decades.In re Grand Jury, 23 F.4th1088 (9th Cir. 2021),cert granted, 143 S. Ct. 80 (2022), a tax case, addresses the application of the attorney-client privilege to “multipurpose” communications involving legal and non-legal topics ...

The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld an arbitrator’s ruling that a contract that required arbitration of "any dispute" constituted an agreement to class-wide arbitration. The Court’s narrow ruling turns on the parties’ express agreement to allow the arbitrator to decide whether their contract, which contained an arbitration provision but did not mention class proceedings, authorized class arbitration ...

Haynes and Boone, LLP | June 2017

A unanimous Supreme Court held on June 5, 2017, that the SEC’s ability to recover funds through disgorgement is subject to a five-year statute of limitations. The SEC routinely seeks disgorgement as an equitable remedy in actions alleging securities law violations and asserted that disgorgement was not a penalty subject to the five year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2462 ...

[!<CDATA[ This term the Supreme Court is set to resolve a circuit split over the extent of a federal district court’s power to order a person “who resides in or is found” in its district “to give testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal” pursuant to 28 U.S.C Section 1782(a) ...

Hanson Bridgett LLP | July 2017

We previously reported on recent efforts to rescind the Obama Administration’s rule amending the Clean Water Act’s “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”) definition. This followed, as we also reported, the Sixth Circuit’s nationwide stay of the Obama Administration’s WOTUS rule ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | July 2023

A month after nixing the “objectively reasonable interpretation” (Safeco) defense under the False Claims Act, the Supreme Court has vacated and remanded two other cases for further consideration of the defendant’s subjective state of mind when it filed payment claims with the government. The Fourth Circuit in Sheldon and the Eleventh Circuit in Olhausen will provide the first tests of the High Court’s newly minted FCA intent standard ...

In a decision that will likely have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry (and possibly broader implications for patent, antitrust, and high technology), the Supreme Court yesterday refused to exempt so-called reverse payment (or "pay for delay") patent settlements from antitrust scrutiny. Prior to yesterday’s ruling in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. ___ (2013), most of the circuit courts to have considered the issue (i.e ...

Hanson Bridgett LLP | August 2020

Key Points Adoption of Water Rates not subject to challenge by referendum; challenges are limited to those provided for by Proposition 218. California Supreme Court overrules Court of Appeal decision that found that water rates are not a "tax" under Article II, Section 9. Supreme Court disagrees, finding municipal water rates fall within the broad understanding of the term "tax," and referendum cannot be used to disrupt essential government services ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | June 2020

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not follow appropriate administrative procedures to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and, therefore, was unauthorized to do so. The decision was a 5-4 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor ...

Dykema | June 2021

On June 17, the Supreme Court rejected another court challenge to the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge its minimum essential coverage provisions. For the third time, the Supreme Court upheld the ACA. More than a decade after the ACA was enacted, the long and winding road of ACA challenges may be over and healthcare industry participants may finally be able to rely on the ACA as settled law moving forward ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | June 2024

In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court rejected efforts to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone, overturning an earlier decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court ruled that the physicians and medical associations who brought the case did not have the right to challenge the FDA's regulation of the drug. To have standing, plaintiffs must show they have a “personal stake” in the case ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | December 2022

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in many business owners seeking business interruption and extra expense coverage for lost income sustained as a result of mandatory closures of their businesses.  At the core of such claims is the issue of whether businesses can obtain coverage for business interruption in the absence of direct physical loss to their business premises from COVID-19.  Consistent with national trends, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in Neuro-Communication Servs., Inc. v ...

Lavery Lawyers | April 2024

On April 19, 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in Société des casinos du Québec inc. v. Association des cadres de la Société des casinos du Québec, marking the end of an almost 15 year-long debate on the freedom of association of managers and their exclusion under the Labour Code ...

Lawson Lundell LLP | April 2021

In its highly anticipated judgment, the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act constitutional in a split 6-3 decision. The key issue before the court was whether the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (“GGPPA”) was constitutional. The majority decided that it was, because Parliament has jurisdiction to enact this law as a matter of national concern ...

Lavery Lawyers | March 2014

On March 20, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada granted Réjean Hinse leave to appeal a decision involving an action in damages he brought against the federal authorities, represented by the Attorney General of Canada. In 1964, Mr. Hinse was wrongly convicted of taking part in an armed robbery and ordered to serve fifteen (15) years in prison. He was acquitted by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997, thirty-three (33) years later. After he was acquitted, Mr ...

Hanson Bridgett LLP | September 2020

Key Points A permitting agency's blanket designation of an entire category of permit decisions as ministerial for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) may be held to be improper if the agency has the ability to modify or deny the permit based on any concern that may be examined under CEQA review. Courts will afford a larger degree of deference to an agency’s designation of a single permit decision as ministerial on a case-by-case basis ...

Debtors hoping to discharge their obligations in bankruptcy may find a new hurdle based on the US Supreme Court’s Feb. 22 ruling. Relying on the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code, and Congress’s use of passive voice, the Supreme Court held that funds obtained through fraud, regardless of who committed such fraud, are not dischargeable through bankruptcy ...

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP | July 2023

At the end of its 2023 term, the United States Supreme Court handed down several buzz-worthy decisions. Two opinions may have substantial and lasting impacts on employers and their efforts to promote diversity and inclusion. In Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, the Court addressed religious accommodation and clarified the parameters of its “undue burden” standard set forth in its prior decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63 (1977). 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2790 ...

This is a briefing on Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 20-07-04-SC (2020 Interim Rules on Remote Notarization of Paper Documents) dated July 14, 20201 (“RON Rules”), a COVID-19 related issuance. In general, signatories of documents to be notarized have to appear before the notary generally at the latter’s place of business ...

Dykema | April 2020

The United States Supreme Court recently held that a plaintiff need not show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff's trademark as a requirement for recovering the defendant’s profits.Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Grp., Inc., No. 18-1233, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 2408, at *12-13 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2020). Romag Fasteners, Inc. sued Fossil, Inc ...

dots