4,296 results found

In Deggs v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd., Supreme Court Cause No. 91969-1, 2016 Wash. LEXIS 1132 (Oct. 6, 2016), Judy Deggs' wrongful death claims arose out of an asbestos-related injury to her father Ray Sundberg.

The California Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Leeper v. Shipt, Inc. on November 3, 2026, addressing whether plaintiffs can avoid arbitration agreements by filing "headless" PAGA claims that exclude individual components. The case centers on Christina Leeper's strategic decision to plead only non-individual PAGA claims against Shipt for alleged worker misclassification, raising critical questions about the structure and arbitrability of PAGA actions.

On May 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities v. Bonneville Power Administration that a determination by the Bonneville Power Administration to trigger a rate adjustment clause was not a final agency action subject to judicial review.

Family law practitioners know that in this area of practice, perhaps more so than in any other practice, hearsay statements are often an important part of motions...

On February 27, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to hear a case that could cast doubt on all of the regulations...

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed House Bill 0219 into law on August 11, 2023, effective immediately. The statutory change will allow heirs of decedents to recover punitive damages...

Executive Summary: The election is over. The vote is in. Donald Trump will be our 45th President. And, for the first time since 2006 (when the 109th Congress was in session during the Bush administration)...

In a development that is being watched closely by law firms and insurers, on April 19, 2006, the California Supreme Court granted review of a second appellate district decision which held that the limitations period for a legal malpractice claim is tolled as to a law firm while one of the firm's former attorneys continues to represent that firm's former client in the same matter at a new law firm.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has denied the federal government’s request to stay a district court order blocking the administration’s H-1B measures, including the proposed $100,000 filing fee.

A federal district court, applying Indiana law, has held that a sublimit for regulatory claims applied, despite grammatical errors in the policy’s language. HealthtrackRX Indiana, Inc. v. RSUI Indem. Co., 2026 WL...

A Florida federal court addressed whether COVID-19 business interruption claims could proceed under a policy's "Loss of Attraction" coverage for infectious disease...

As a matter of first impression, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the manifestation trigger applies to a first-party property damage claim under a standard homeowners insurance policy.

In a patent battle over the world’s top-selling drug, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court holding that a claim cannot be constructed contrary to the specification or construed to import a limitation from the specification.

Addressing the disavowal of claim scope by an election in response to a restriction requirement where the examiner provided no guidance regarding the differences by which he distinguished the patentably distinct inventions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a district court’s summary judgment of no infringement, holding that an election in response to such a restriction requirement does not amount to a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope.

Concluding that the accused infringer lacked notice that the product sold for an unauthorized use was a variety protected under the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of the accused infringer’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on both the PVPA and Lanham Act claims.

The Federal Circuit has ruled that patents cannot be saved when an undisputed joint inventor is omitted and cannot be added due to inability to provide required notice. This case of first impression establishes that omitted coinventors are "parties concerned" under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), entitled to notice regardless of economic interest, and that failure to satisfy this statutory requirement results in patent invalidity even when all parties agree on inventorship.

The Federal Circuit's decision in Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc. establishes that a published patent application can only claim its provisional's filing date as prior art if the provisional provides written description support under § 112(a) for at least one claim. This ruling overturns the PTAB's more lenient "ministerial" standard and creates significant implications for both patent prosecution and inter partes review proceedings.

By a poll, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc on its holding that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction of a takings claim for just compensation for unauthorized use by the government under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491.