(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit arising from a terrible motorcycle accident that alleged defects in the tires and helmets involved failed because the plaintiffs didn't present admissible expert testimony to support their claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed judgment on the verdict and remand for new trial. Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against Defendant for injuries suffered in a bus accident. The jury found for Plaintiff but awarded minimal damages on the belief from an expert testimony that future surgery would not be required. The court awarded Defendant costs and attorney fees under CCP 998. Plaintiff appealed on the grounds that the expert testimony exceeded the scope of permissible impeachment. The appeals court agreed and ordered the trial court to vacate its order on the post-trial motions.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Petition for rehearing granted. A lawsuit by a police officer hit by a thrown object during a protest against Black Lives Matter was properly dismissed, but his suit against the protest organizer should have been permitted to proceed.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The magistrate judge and district court properly denied the claims of a group of fishermen to a portion of the punitive damages settlement granted to a class of claimants alleging harm as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill because the court was bound to precedent, the plain language of the settlement, and a deferential standard of review.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's dismissal of a tort claim as time barred was in error because at the motion to dismiss stage dismissal for statute of limitations is only possible if the plaintiff's claims are conclusively time barred on the face of the complaint.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Plaintiff successfully brought an action against Defendant for contract-based and statutory remedies for nonpayment of wages. On appeal Plaintiff sought to hold Defendant personally liable under a theory of common law conversion. The appeals court held that such a conversion claim is not the appropriate remedy.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the case of a man who alleged a constitutional violation related to his injuries while in custody, the dismissal of all federal claims for failure to state a claim affirmed, as was the decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a Texas law claim.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Walgreens was not responsible for third parties injured on the road by a customer of the pharmacy who was negligently given someone else's prescription. They did not owe a tort duty of care to third parties.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed. The substitution of the guardians of the children of a deceased man discovered a year after the filing of a wrongful death action by his mother was proper despite the substitution occurring after the statutory limitations period. The substitution relates back to the date of the initial complaint.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was injured in a head-on traffic accident that he alleged was partially caused by a dangerous road condition. The jury found that a dangerous condition existed but it was not a reasonably foreseeable risk that this kind of incident would occur. The appeals court agreed and affirmed the judgment in favor of the Defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs are the parents of three girls who were killed by a speeding motorist while they crossed the street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiff brought an action against the City of Santa Ana claiming that the crosswalk qualified as a dangerous condition on public property. The appeals court did not find a dangerous condition or any peculiar condition that would trigger an obligation by the City.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed appeal. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to an expedited jury trial process pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 630.01. As part of the expedited process, the parties agree to waive the right to appeal. Plaintiff sought to appeal the amount of the damages award, but by executing the consent to expedited jury trial she voluntarily waived her right to appeal.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. An injury suit under general maritime law failed because causation evidence was scant and the injured party couldn't prove that grease on a ship deck caused him to slip and fall.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued Defendant for a slip and fall accident in the BART station on the theory that the train operator owed a heightened duty of care under Civil Code section 2100. The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds that Defendant had no liability for accidents that did not occur on the train. The appeals court agreed also holding that section 2100 does not apply to minor commonplace hazards in a train station.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant, a skilled nursing facility, appealed an order denying its petition to compel arbitration for claims of negligent, elder abuse and wrongful death. The trial court found that the claims were not arbitratable because there was no arbitration agreement between Defendant and the decedent.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In a claim of negligence for secondary exposure to asbestos, the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient cause. The panel held that in the context of asbestos claims, the substantial-factor test requires “demonstrating that the injured person had substantial exposure to the relevant asbestos for a substantial period of time.”

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The Texas Citizens Participation Act does not apply to diversity cases in federal court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacating and remanding the Second Circuit's support of a motion to dismiss a complaint relating to allegations that Chinese sellers of Vitamin C were engaged in price and quantity fixing of exports to the US because although the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China averred that the alleged price fixing scheme was actually a pricing regime mandated by the Chinese Government the court was not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government's statements. No law or regulation had been cited and a foreign nation's laws must be proven as facts.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff appealed from a decision to deny his petition for discovery under 28 USC section 1782, which allows a party t petition for discovery for use in a foreign proceeding. Plaintiff sought certain materials to be used in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The district court held that under Intel Corp v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 US 241 that the material sought was irrelevant and would not be used by the EPO. The appellate court affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed an order which had allowed the plaintiff to subpoena documents from a U.S. law firm for use in litigation against Royal Dutch Shell in the Netherlands. The appeals court held that Shell's American counsel should not be compelled to deliver documents that would not be discoverable abroad and that were in counsel's hands solely because they were sent to the U.S. for the purpose of American litigation. The appeals court further determined that the district court abused its discretion under 28 U.S.C. section 1782 when it permitted the plaintiff to subpoena the documents.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss based on foreign sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereignty Immunity Act in a securities lawsuit filed by the shareholder of an Argentine petroleum company against the Argentine Republic which held a majority of shares in the company. In affirming the denial and rejecting the claim of sovereign immunity, the appeals court noted that the plaintiff was seeking relief for injuries caused by commercial, rather than sovereign, activity.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated a criminal conviction and the sentence of a U.S. citizen who allegedly drugged and raped several children while he was residing in Cambodia. In reversing, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant was improperly convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. section 2423(c) because the version of that statute in effect during the relevant time period was inapplicable to U.S. citizens living abroad unless they were traveling (as opposed to residing) in the foreign country when they committed the sexual acts that the statute prohibits.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed the convictions and sentences for providing support to a foreign terrorist organization following a bench trial where the district court found that the two defendants had collected money to assist a foreign terrorist organization's activities. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit rejected the defendants' argument that the district court, among other things, should have suppressed evidence obtained pursuant to warrants issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the dismissal of a shareholder class action against Toshiba Corp. filed by investors who alleged securities fraud. The district court dismissed their claims on jurisdictional grounds and, on appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the district court misapplied principles regarding extraterritorial applicability of U.S. securities laws set forth in Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010). The Ninth Circuit agreed with plaintiffs and reversed and remanded with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to amend their shareholder complaint against the Japanese firm to overcome the jurisdictional hurdle.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed an art museum's title to two oil paintings that the Nazis had stolen from the plaintiff's father-in-law during World War II. The plaintiff sued the museum to recover the two Renaissance masterpieces, but the museum insisted it had good title because the Dutch government validly conveyed the paintings after the war to the person who sold them to the museum. Concluding that the act-of-state doctrine applied here, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the museum.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment ordering forfeiture to the United States of seven ancient Cypriot coins and eight ancient Chinese coins. A numismatist organization that opposed import restrictions on ancient coins argued that the forfeiture order imposed in connection with international rules on ownership of cultural property was improper. However, the Fourth Circuit rejected each of the organization's contentions of error.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a torture victim who had obtained a court judgment against a terrorist organization was not entitled to attach funds from the organization's blocked electronic fund transfers. The torture victim wanted several banks to turn over $36 million to him in order to satisfy a court judgment he had obtained against the terrorist organization in a U.S. court. In a 2-1 decision affirming the district court, the Second Circuit held that the punitively sanctioned organization's blocked assets were not subject to attachment.

(United States First Circuit) - Held that a defendant who won a summary judgment motion could not appeal to challenge unflattering statements found in the trial judge's opinion. In this tort lawsuit brought by a Ugandan gay-rights organization, the defendant religious leader successfully obtained summary judgment by arguing lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction but then appealed. The First Circuit concluded that a winner cannot appeal a judgment merely because there are passages in the court's opinion that displease him or her.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed dismissal of a breach-of-contract suit against a Mexican-government-owned salt production company (ESSA) on sovereign immunity grounds. The plaintiff corporation alleged that ESSA breached a long-term, multimillion-dollar contract to sell the briny residue of its salt production process. Agreeing with the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that ESSA was immune from suit in the United States because it is a foreign state for purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and neither the commercial-activity exception nor other exceptions applied here.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of the US Court of International Trade (ITC) which had found that the certain merchandise involving compression hosiery was not duty free. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the analysis of the ITC was incorrect, but the correct result was ultimately reached.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed a man's conviction under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act for conspiring with a woman to remove her child to Nicaragua in order to prevent her civil-union partner from exercising parental rights. Appealing his conviction, the man argued that the district court should have suppressed location information garnered from his cellphone records because the government obtained them through a subpoena issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act rather than a court‐approved warrant. Finding no merit in this contention or in his objection to the jury instructions, the Second Circuit affirmed his conviction.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that the government cannot use theories of conspiracy or complicity to charge a defendant with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act if he is not in the category of persons covered by the statute. However, they reasoned that the defendant could conspire with foreign nationals even though he was never in the United States.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that a Switzerland-based financial firm could proceed with a tax refund claim. The firm sought a $38 million refund under a U.S.-Swiss treaty that deals with the tax on dividends paid by U.S. corporations and received by foreign shareholders. Reversed the district court's ruling that the refund claim raised a nonjusticiable political question.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the mother of a U.S. Army service member who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq did not state a claim against a Germany-based bank. She claimed that the bank was responsible for her son's death under the Anti-Terrorism Act because it had conspired with Iran by evading U.S. banking sanctions. She contended that the fatal bomb was a signature Iranian weapon. Affirmed that she did not plausibly plead a claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a California superior court had jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding, in a case raising questions under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The mother had previously initiated a child custody proceeding in her home country of Belarus.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that 14 Holocaust survivors could proceed with their lawsuit against the Republic of Hungary seeking compensation for the seizure and expropriation of their property during the Holocaust. Reversed the district court, which had dismissed their complaint based on principles of international comity and on grounds of forum non conveniens.

(United States DC Circuit) - Revived Palestinian nationals' claims that pro-Israeli Americans engaged in a civil conspiracy to expel all Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by funneling millions of dollars to Jewish settlements there. The defendants contended that the case raised nonjusticiable political questions and should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Disagreeing, the D.C. Circuit reversed a dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a bankruptcy trustee may attempt to obtain property that Bernard Madoff's investment firm transferred to foreign entities that subsequently transferred it to other foreign entities. The transferees contended that the Bankruptcy Code's provisions did not extend extraterritorially in this manner. Disagreeing, the Second Circuit held that neither the presumption against extraterritoriality nor international comity principles barred the trustee from recovering in these consolidated actions. The panel vacated the bankruptcy court judgments and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an order issued by an arbitrator in the Philippines was not an arbitral award entitled to enforcement under a United Nations convention on recognition of foreign arbitral awards, based on the particular circumstances here. Reversed and remanded, in this case involving a fishing vessel crew member's personal injury claim.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an international organization did not have as much immunity from lawsuits as it contended it did. The U.S.-headquartered organization was being sued in connection with its financing of a development project in India that allegedly created damaging pollution. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the organization's immunity was the same as foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, in a 7-1 decision interpreting the International Organizations Immunities Act. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the decision.

(United States DC Circuit) - Revived an American citizen's claim seeking damages from two foreign officials of the Democratic Republic of the Congo who allegedly subjected him to torture. Held that the Congolese officials did not qualify for foreign official immunity under the common law. Vacated a dismissal, in this lawsuit brought under the federal Torture Victim Protection Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Refused to quash service of a summons on a company in Hong Kong. The company contended that the service did not adhere to proper Hong Kong procedures and was invalid under international law. Disagreeing, the California Court of Appeal denied writ relief.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a Houston law firm should be allowed to intervene in a lawsuit to protect its right to a contingent fee. The firm's client and the opposing party had allegedly conspired to cheat it out of its deserved attorney fee for work on a matter involving a foreign arbitral award. Remanded with directions to permit intervention and consider the law firm's claims on the merits.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed a question concerning a method of serving civil process on a foreign state. The Republic of Sudan argued that a mailing must be sent directly to the foreign minister's office in the foreign state, not to the foreign state's U.S. embassy. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Sudan's argument in an 8-1 decision. Justice Alito delivered the Court's opinion, in this case arising out of the 2000 bombing of the Navy vessel USS Cole.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that four divorced men could not proceed with their lawsuit accusing Israeli government officials and others of misconduct in connection with their divorce proceedings and child support orders. Affirmed a dismissal based partly on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and partly on failure to state a claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an accused murderer's challenge to Mexico's request to extradite him went beyond the narrow role for courts in the extradition process. Affirmed the denial of his habeas corpus petition.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the district court should not have sua sponte raised a statute of limitations defense to defeat a terrorism lawsuit against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which had failed to make an appearance in the case. The suit alleged that Iran was involved in terrorist bombings in the 1980s and 1990s that killed or injured the plaintiffs' family members. Vacated a dismissal.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute, addressed an issue relating to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Held that an insurance contract's conformity-to-statute provision did not negate the agreement to arbitrate.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organization, in this lawsuit brought by the estate of an American schoolteacher who was killed in a terrorist attack in the West Bank. Affirmed a dismissal, finding that the recently enacted Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act of 2018 did not apply here.