(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a challenge to federal statutory restrictions on certain types of advertising by public broadcast TV stations, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the FCC is: 1) affirmed in part, where 47 U.S.C. section 399b(a)(1), restricting paid advertisements for goods and services on behalf of for-profit corporations, was not an unconstitutional speech restriction under the intermediate scrutiny standard; 2) reversed in part, where sections 399b(a)(2) and (3), restricting public-issue advertisements and political advertisements, were unconstitutional speech restrictions under intermediate scrutiny, as there was no evidence of harm to a substantial governmental interest.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit brought by two nonprofit veterans organizations against the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Ninth Circuit en banc holds: 1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to reach the plaintiffs' statutory and due process challenges to alleged delays in the provision of mental health care and to the absence of procedures to challenge such delays; 2) the district court lacked jurisdiction to reach the plaintiffs' claims related to delays in the adjudication of service-related disability benefits; 3) the district court had jurisdiction to consider the plaintiffs' challenges to the alleged inadequacy of the procedures at the regional office level; and 4) the district court properly exercised that jurisdiction to deny the plaintiffs' claim on the merits.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action by a Virginia non-profit corporation organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide "accurate and truthful information about the public policy positions of Senator Barack Obama," contending that it was "chilled" from posting information about then-Senator Obama because of the vagueness of a Commission regulation, 11 C.F.R. section 100.22(b), and a Commission policy, published at 72 Fed. Reg. 5595 (Feb. 7, 2007), relating to whether plaintiff has to make disclosures or is a "political committee" (PAC), the District Court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) neither the regulation nor policy are unconstitutionally broad and vague in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments; and 2) it correctly applied the "exacting scrutiny" standard applicable to disclosure provisions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this case, the district court's judgment in favor of defendants Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, finding them statutorily exempt from state and local taxation of real property transfers and finding that Congress had the constitutional authority to exempt defendants from such taxation, is affirmed, where: 1) the transfer taxes at issue here are excise taxes, and the statutory carve-outs allowing for taxation of real property encompass only property taxes, not excise taxes; 2) because Congress had power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the secondary mortgage market, it had power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to ensure the preservation of defendant organizations by exempting them from state and local taxes; and 3) the exemptions do not violate the Tenth Amendment.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated a lawsuit alleging that a movie studio breached its collective-bargaining agreement with musicians who score motion pictures. The musicians' labor union contended that the movie studio breached the labor agreement by having the film Same Kind of Different As Me scored in Slovakia, rather than hiring union musicians in the U.S. and Canada. Finding genuine disputes of material fact, the Ninth Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment for the movie studio and remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying Defendant’s motion to strike. Plaintiff represented deceased celebrity, Jenni Rivera, and they sought to restrict disclosure by Defendant broadcaster of certain information. Appeals court ruled the First Amendment protected broadcaster’s use of information and reversed trial court order.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action claiming of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act and Nevada state law by a beverage company-plaintiff, which sells a competing line of flavored vodkas, the District Court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where the district court erred in: 1) failing to place the burden of proof on defendant, the moving party; 2) failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff; and 3) never analyzing whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trademark dispute involving the use of the mark CRAZY HORSE for entertainment services, namely exotic dance performances, the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiff is affirmed where plaintiff was the assignee of a valid trademark co-existence agreement entered into with the former owner of the registered mark and therefore had the right to use the mark.

(United States First Circuit) - In an infringement action to determine whether a Puerto Rico credit union infringed a bank's word mark and trade name ORIENTAL with its competing marks COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, ORIENTAL POP, and CLUB DE ORIENTALITO, the District Court's finding of non-infringement and refusal to enjoin their use is: 1) reversed as to COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, and ORIENTAL POP, where the district court's determination of non-infringement was clearly erroneous; and 2) affirmed where the district court's determination is supportable as to CLUB DE ORIENTALITO.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that members of the Crow Tribe retain a broad right under an 1868 Treaty to hunt on land that is now part of the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming. One issue was whether the treaty hunting rights expired when Wyoming became a state. The U.S. Supreme Court, divided 5-4, ruled favorably to the Tribe. Justice Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Granted a lawful permanent resident's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. Held that his Illinois conviction for unlawful possession of several Xanax pills without a prescription did not render him removable.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Rejected a Honduras national's claim that he was falsely imprisoned by federal immigration authorities. Affirmed summary judgment for the U.S.

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 92

(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a teacher working for the U.S. Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools failed to file a timely petition for review of a decision removing her from the federal service. The teacher, who argued that her procedural due process rights were violated when she was fired from her job teaching on a military base, petitioned for review of an arbitrator's decision. However, the Federal Circuit concluded that her petition for review was not timely filed and thus dismissed it.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The defendant’s prior Nevada conviction for attempted battery with substantial bodily harm in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 200.481(2)(b) and 193.330 qualifies as a felony conviction for a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. Section 2K2.1.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a law firm's suit to enforce a fee-splitting agreement against another law firm, arising from an underlying class action, trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant-law firm is reversed where an attorney may be equitably estopped from claiming that a fee-sharing contract is unenforceable due to noncompliance with rule 2-200 or rule 3.769, where that attorney is responsible for such noncompliance and has unfairly prevent another lawyer from complying with the rules' mandates.

(United States Second Circuit) - The district court's order reciprocally suspending defendant-attorney from the practice of law before that court based on an order of the Connecticut Superior Court, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant received adequate notice of the charges; 2) defendant's other due process challenges to the state court proceedings are either meritless or, at most, concern harmless error; and 3) defendant also has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was a "substantial infirmity in the proof" supporting the state court disciplinary order.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that eleven American families could not revive their lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority and others for various terror attacks in Israel that killed or wounded the plaintiffs or their family members. The plaintiffs relied on the 2018 enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act, but the statute did not warrant the extraordinary remedy of recalling the mandate in this already completed case, which had been dismissed on procedural grounds.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of plaintiff-former minority shareholder's securities fraud claims alleging that defendant-insiders purchased stock by making a tender offer through a shell corporation without disclosing any information about defendant-company's financial state, is: 1) vacated as to the dismissal of plaintiff's insider trading claims under sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and of her pendent non-federal claims for breach of fiduciary duty, where the duty of corporate insiders to either disclose material non-public information or abstain from trading is defined by federal common law and applies to unregistered securities, and therefore, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's insider trading claims; but 2) affirmed as to the dismissal of her market manipulation claims, and of her insider trading claims under section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act.

(PA Supreme Court) - No. 22 WAP 2018 No. 23 WAP 2018

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a punitive damages award against an automobile insurance company for unreasonably delaying payment to a policyholder after a car crash.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated. A district court conclusion that executive orders regarding relations between the federal government and its employees was unlawful was in error. The district court lacked jurisdiction.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the validity of a Treasury Department regulation. The provision's focus is that related business entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements. Reversed the judgment of the U.S. Tax Court.

(California Court of Appeal) - On rehearing, held that a professional model and actor was not entitled to recover his attorney fees after being awarded damages against an advertiser that used his likeness in an advertising campaign after its right to do so expired. Affirmed the trial court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an en banc opinion, addressed the constitutionality of a San Francisco ordinance that requires health warnings to be included in advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages. Industry groups challenged the ordinance, contending that it violates freedom of commercial speech. Finding this argument persuasive, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction against the ordinance.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought by the former CEO of American Apparel whose employment was terminated following an investigation into allegations that he engaged in various types of misconduct, alleging several causes of action rooted in plaintiff's claim that the press release announcing his termination contained false and defamatory information about him, the trial court's grant of defendant's order granting an anti-SLAPP motion, Code Civ. Proc. section 425.16, is affirmed where plainitiff did not satisfy his burden of showing there was a minimal chance his claims would succeed at trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the dismissal of a complaint brought by a company formed by a hairdresser who attempted to take advantage of changes in the law relating to whether cancelled companies can pursue litigation rather than litigate in a forthcoming manner, creating a situation where they were technically entitled to proceed but allowing them to do so would be unfair.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld an Internal Revenue Service regulation addressing the tax treatment of employee stock options. In a ruling that has tax implications for multinational companies especially, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Tax Court erred in striking down a regulation, 26 C.F.R. section 1.482-7A(d)(2), which says that related entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements and thus avoid an IRS adjustment. The panel held that the regulation was entitled to Chevron deference.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In consolidated petitions for review brought by various power companies of FERC determinations that various energy companies committed tariff violations in California during the summer of 2000, the FERC determinations are affirmed where: 1) it did not arbitrarily and capriciously, or abuse its discretion in finding that electric sellers Shell Energy North America, LP, MPS Merchant Services, Inc., and Illinova Corporation violated the Cal-ISO tariff and Market Monitoring and Information Protocol; 2) FERC's Summer Period determinations regarding APX, Inc., and BP EnergyCo. were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; and 3) because FERC's remedial order is not final, the panel lacked appellate jurisdiction over it.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denying a petition for review by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation seeking to vacate two orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorizing a company to construct a natural gas pipeline in New York and determining that the Department waived its authority to provide a water quality certification for the pipeline project under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the federal government was time-barred from seeking civil penalties against two electric power companies that allegedly violated the Clean Air Act by failing to obtain a statutorily mandated preconstruction permit for the modification of their facilities. Also held, however, that the government still could pursue injunctive relief, and thus reversed the dismissal of the government's complaint in relevant part.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal of a decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which affirmed the U.S. Department of Commerce's final determination in an antidumping investigation into oil country tubular goods (OCTGs) from Saudi Arabia and other countries imported into the U.S., the Trade Court's decision is vacated where the parties failed to exhaust their arguments before Commerce, and the Trade Court abused its discretion in waiving the exhaustion requirement in this case.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal from a divided decision by the International Trade Commission, finding no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. section 1337, based on the Commission's holding of invalidity of certain asserted claims of appellant's patent that describes single-brew coffee machines, the Commission's decision is affirmed where substantial evidence supports the Commission's holding that all asserted claims are invalid for lack of written description.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of plaintiff's suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is reversed where plaintiff's stated claims under the Lanham Act, alleging false advertising and unfair competition, were sufficient for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Grant of a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from infringing upon the trade dress of Hansen Beverage Company's line of "Monster" energy drinks with defendant's line of "Freek" energy drinks is reversed where the district court abused its discretion in determining that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, as a finding of a likelihood of confusion was clearly erroneous.

(United States Tenth Circuit) - In trademark dispute over steel "body kits" designed to make a truck look like a military-style vehicle, denial of plaintiff GM's motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that GM failed to make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits that the "body kits" infringe upon and dilute GM's trade dress rights in its Hummer line of vehicles.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denied writ of habeas corpus. Defendant was convicted of lewd acts against two minors under the age of 14. Penal Code 667.61 provides that if there are multiple victims under 14 the sentence is 25 to life. The question in the writ was whether Defendant was given notice of the possibility of a 25 year to life sentence. The appeals court found no due process violation.

(United States First Circuit) - In a civil forfeiture case arising in the aftermath of a 1993 criminal prosecution in which claimant entered a guilty plea to a single count charging money laundering violations, seeking compensation for the government's alleged seizure of claimant's ownership interest in a professional basketball team franchise, the district court's judgment in favor of the government is affirmed where: 1) nothing in the court records suggests that the government seized the franchise when it obtained the restraining order to preserve the franchise as a potentially forfeitable asset; and 2) though that order effectively prevented the claimant from participating in the affairs of the franchise, it did not divest him of his proprietary interest.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of an action brought under diversity jurisdiction by the LA Lakers against an insurer when it denied coverage and declined to defend them in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because the court agreed that the lawsuit was an invasion of privacy suit that was specifically excluded from coverage.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of the North American Soccer League's motion for preliminary injunction seeking Division II designation pending the resolution of its antitrust case against the United States Soccer Federation because they had failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denying the petition for mandamus by an insurer that had paid millions on an Employee Theft Insurance policy when the insured company was found to have engaged in corrupt activities such as obtaining bribes and kickbacks from subcontractors to a government contract it held because, even if they had overcome various procedural obstacles, the company's criminal conduct and, by extension, that of the insurer, precluded them from obtaining restitution from an implicated employee, but vacating and remanding an order dismissing the insurer's petition in the employee's forfeiture proceeding because the district court failed to determine whether the company's unclean hands kept it from an equitable remedy.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services improperly calculated two Mississippi hospitals' Medicare reimbursements, specifically, so-called Disproportionate Share Hospital payments. Reversed the decision below and remanded to the agency.

A "buy two for the price of one" type of spammer.