(United States Supreme Court) - In a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) against church-affiliated nonprofits that run hospitals and other healthcare facilities, brought by current and former employees of the hospitals, alleging that the hospitals' pension plans do not fall within ERISA's church-plan exemption because they were not established by a church, the Seventh Circuit's judgment affirming the District Court's decision that a plan must be established by a church to qualify as a church plan, is reversed where a plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization qualifies as a 'church plan,' regardless of who established it.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated, and remanded for retrial. Defendant killed a grizzly bear that was harassing his horses in Montana and was convicted of violating the Endangered Species Act. The 9th Circuit held that the trial court erred in applying an objectively reasonable standard when it should have applied a subjective belief standard as to the defendant's claim of self-defense.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark suit brought by a provider of healthcare services against a provider of digital health-related content, the District Court's injunction which prohibited defendant from using its marks within plaintiff’s geographic service area, but placed no restriction on defendant's use of its marks on the Internet or outside plaintiff's service area, is affirmed but remanded for expansion of the injunction's scope, where the current limitations placed on defendant were based on an incorrect standard and fail to give plaintiff and the public adequate protection from likely confusion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that parties do not consent to classwide arbitration if the agreement is ambiguous on that point. An employer sought to block an employee from proceeding with a proposed class action lawsuit and instead force his claims into individual arbitration. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the employer had the right to do this, because the arbitration agreement was ambiguous about the availability of classwide arbitration. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Upheld an Indiana law relating to the disposition of fetal remains by abortion providers. The Seventh Circuit had struck down the law, which altered the manner in which abortion providers may dispose of fetal remains; for instance, the law prevents incineration of fetal remains along with surgical byproducts. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded in a per curiam decision that the law passes rational basis review. Only two justices dissented.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a conviction for illegal reentry into the United States. Rejected the defendant's argument that his confession was admitted in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. An ambiguous record regarding a state law conviction does not constitute a predicate offense that would bar eligibility for a cancellation of removal, overruling Young v. Holder, where Petitioner argued previous conviction for conspiracy to commit a felony did not reference a specific controlled substance.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

Aside from a few wild guesses, Izuku had no idea how this had happened. But here he was, about to bear All Might's child, and all he could think to blame it on was a jar of rice.

r/Coronavirus: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus strain (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in the city of Wuhan, China. This subreddit seeks to monitor the …

RT @antimega: At @GDSTeam we’re running a number of online events for Global Accessibility Awareness Day on 21 May - please join us! #accessibility #AccessibilityRegulations

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 83

There's been a meme going round that women leaders have dealt better with coronavirus. I don't think that's right: women aren't better, it's just that strongmen are worse.

Who framed Roger Rabbit? Talking about Software Development in companies is about using frames. The prevalent frame is the that of the 'Backlog'. Thinking in this frame defines success as finishing the backlog. The pressure of throughput leads to engineering cutting corners and makes developers unhappy. Thinking in an 'Impact' frame leads to more successful company and happier developers. Stephan Schmidt

"I left work and I felt so deflated," one doctor said about an effort to counter misinformation he saw on Facebook. "I let it get to me."Breaking News EmailsGet breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.

Sure, the Velociraptors Are Still On the Loose, But That’s No Reason Not to Reopen Jurassic Park

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed an arbitrator’s decision sustaining plaintiff’s removal from employment as a corrections officer with the Bureau of Prisons. The Federal Circuit reasoned that there was no claim of prejudice for the delay between the notice of employment infractions and the date of termination and it found plaintiff’s other arguments unpersuasive.

(United States Federal Circuit) - A company appealed from the determination in an inter partes review that certain claims of its patent directed to dental implants were unpatentable. Affirming, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in its anticipation finding.

MOSMAN Council will replace a trashed boom gate near a “nightmare” rat run after a second illegal extension was installed and the entire boom broken.

(United States Federal Circuit) - A company appealed from the determination in an inter partes review that certain claims of its patent directed to dental implants were unpatentable. Affirming, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in its anticipation finding.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an inventor's sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention. The dispute here involved two pharmaceutical companies that disagreed about whether a certain drug was under patent; one of the companies wanted to market a generic version of it. Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion.

A BOLD declaration by Warringah skipper Matt Butcher has his team in the box seat to secure first-innings points on Saturday.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute involving two competing healthcare companies, held that nurse recruiters who left one company to join the other did not breach clauses in their contracts that prohibited them from soliciting other employees to leave, because those clauses were unenforceable here. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

FORGET the politicians. Five fuzzy dingo pups have won the votes — and hearts — of visitors to the Australian Reptile Park these school holidays.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued medical providers for birth injuries that were paid for through Medi-Cal. The Department of Health Care Services put a lien on the monies recovered from the medical providers. Plaintiff sought to remove lien. Court held that Medi-Cal was entitled to repayment and upheld the lien.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order denying petition to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs attempted to enforce arbitration in an action for elder abuse and wrongful death at a skilled nursing facility. The trial court determined that the successor in interest was bound by the agreement to arbitrate, but the children of the decedent were not so bound. The trial court denied the petition to arbitrate to prevent inconsistent findings if both arbitration and litigation proceeded concurrently. The appeals court agreed.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a proposed shareholder class action could not proceed in a California court. The proper jurisdiction was Delaware because the defendant corporation had adopted a bylaw designating Delaware as the exclusive litigation forum for intra-corporate disputes. The forum selection bylaw was enforceable even though it had been adopted without stockholder consent.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff filed a complaint against his employer for unfair competition under the Business and Professions Code section 17200 and also brought wage and hour claims. The Defendant moved to compel arbitration. The trial court granted arbitration for all claims, but for the unfair competition claim. The appeals court held that the unfair competition claim could also be subject to arbitration.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order denying anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiffs sought to assign leasehold interest in shopping center. Defendant refused to consent to assignment. Plaintiff brought suit alleging Defendant improperly withheld assignment. Defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion which the trial court denied because the assignment request was not a settlement communication or litigation-related conduct.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees. (Revised opinion)

(United States Federal Circuit) - A company appealed from the determination in an inter partes review that certain claims of its patent directed to dental implants were unpatentable. Affirming, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in its anticipation finding.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an inventor's sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention. The dispute here involved two pharmaceutical companies that disagreed about whether a certain drug was under patent; one of the companies wanted to market a generic version of it. Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for assault in the second degree is affirmed and the court held that when a new rule is announced during the one-year grace period for filing a notice of appeal, a judgment becomes final 30 days after sentencing where a defendant does not file a timely direct appeal and does not move for leave to file a late notice of appeal under CPL 460.30 (1).

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A preliminary injunction against enforcement of state laws requiring parental notification in the case of pregnant unemancipated minors seeking abortions was upheld.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an action stemming from the death of plaintiff's 15-year old son from a rare form of asphyxiation known as "dry drowning" or "secondary drowning" shortly after his participation in a mandatory swimming class run by his physical education teacher, claiming violations of her son's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the district court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment, on the basis of qualified immunity, is reversed where defendant's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.