Search Results (4560)
Documents on Appellate Practice
Show: results per page
|Fourth Circuit Declined to Grant Second Extension to Serve Process, Finding That Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Failure to Register New Email Address Did Not Constitute “Excusable Neglect.”|
Sarah M. Grago; Semmes Bowen Semmes A Professional Corporation;
July 31, 2014, previously published on July 2014In Martinez v. United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for untimely service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Plaintiff, Silvia Martinez, failed to serve the Defendant, the United States...
|Ninth Circuit Reaffirms U.S. Antitrust Laws Apply To International Price-Fixing Cartels|
Eric B. Fastiff; Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP;
July 30, 2014, previously published on July 11, 2014In a significant ruling defining the scope of U.S. antitrust laws in our global economy, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the criminal convictions of AU Optronics ("AUO"), one of the world's leading manufacturers of Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays...
|Pay Me Now: Court of Appeal Delivers Lessons on Fiduciary Duties, the Business Judgment Rule, and Executive Compensation|
Shane C. D'Souza, Robert A. Glasgow, Elder C. Marques; McCarthy Tétrault LLP;
July 30, 2014, previously published on July 28, 2014The business judgment of directors setting executive compensation was front and centre in the Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Unique Broadband Systems, Inc. (Re), 2014 ONCA 538 (UBS). Although the decision is based on unique underlying facts, it offers several important lessons...
|The Affordable Care Act—Countdown to Compliance for Employers, Week 22: Charting the Future of the Premium Subsidies (and Employer Penalties): Halbig v. Burwell and King v. Burwell|
Roy M. Albert, Alden J. Bianchi, Stephen M. Weiner; Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.;
July 29, 2014, previously published on July 28, 2014On July 22, 2014, two federal appellate courts issued conflicting decisions, within hours of each other, regarding the IRS final rule published on May 23, 2012 (the “IRS Rule”), intended to implement the exchange-related tax credit provisions of the Affordable Care Act...
|Mammoet v. Edmonton: The Alberta Court of Appeal Clarifies Judicial Review on Bylaw Validity|
Terence Dalgleish; Davis LLP;
July 29, 2014, previously published on July 24, 2014On July 10, 2014, the Alberta Court of Appeal released Mammoet 13220-33 Street NE Limited v Edmonton (City), 2014 ABCA 229, a decision dismissing the City’s appeal of a dismissal of a summary judgment application. This decision clarified the law surrounding the six-month limitation period for...
|Illinois Discovery Rule - Onus on the Insured to Know the Terms and Liability Limits of their Policy|
Gabriel R. Judd; Johnson & Bell, Ltd.;
July 29, 2014, previously published on July 2014The discovery rule is an equitable exception that tolls the statute of limitations period until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action. Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407 (1981). In cases applying the discovery rule, courts hold that the statute of...
|Federal Circuit Reverses Termination Of Enforcement Proceedings In Align Technology Appeal (2013-1240, 1363)|
Lisa M. Mandrusiak, Eric W. Schweibenz; Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.;
July 28, 2014, previously published on July 25, 2014On July 18, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Align Technology, Inc. v. ITC (2013-1240, 1363). This was an appeal from the International Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) decision that it could review the ALJ’s Order...
|IPR Spotlight Series: What to Do When the PTAB Denies Your Petition to Institute IPR|
Meaghan Hemmings Kent, Fabian M. Koenigbauer, Carly S. Levin, Steven J. Schwarz; Venable LLP;
July 28, 2014, previously published on July 24, 2014Inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) became available on September 16, 2012 as a post-grant review procedure to challenge the patentability of issued claims based on prior art patents and publications. To help navigate the uncharted waters of this procedure,...
|$30, Four Opinions, and No Decision: The Province and Duty to Say What the Law Probably Is|
Kellen C. Kasper; Foley & Lardner LLP;
July 26, 2014, previously published on July 25, 2014Federal appellate courts ordinarily grant en banc hearings or rehearings only when “(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or (2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.” Fed. R. App. P. 35(a). So,...
|US Appellate Court Clarifies Due Process Rights for Parties Subject to CFIUS Review of Foreign Investments|
Timothy J. Keeler, Simeon M. Kriesberg, Kelsey Rule, Margaret-Rose Sales; Mayer Brown LLP;
July 26, 2014, previously published on July 22, 2014The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has reversed a lower court’s ruling and held that companies undergoing review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS or the Committee) have a due process right to notice of unclassified evidence and an opportunity to rebut...