(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in the case of a student football player who took some hard hits and ended up diagnosed with traumatic brain injury because the coach was entitled to qualified immunity and there wasn't enough evidence to warrant a jury trail against the town.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a ski area was not liable for injuries that a snowboarder suffered when she collided with a snowcat and snow-grooming tiller. The snowboarder, who was seriously hurt, argued that the ski resort was grossly negligent and thus liable for her injuries despite the liability waiver she had signed as part of her season-pass agreement. However, the Third Appellate District concluded that the operation of snow-grooming equipment on a snow run is an inherent risk of snowboarding and that there was no gross negligence, affirming summary judgment against her claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed summary judgment against a yoga student's claim that her instructor caused her injury while adjusting her posture during a yoga class. According to the student, the instructor harmed her when he moved her leg, lower back, and neck. On appeal, the California Second Appellate District agreed with the yoga instructor that there was no triable issue as to causation, because the student had offered no evidence conflicting with that of the instructor's experts, who opined that the student's medical issues were unrelated to the yoga class.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal from a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals finding that the government did not breach the terms of a supply contract with plaintiff, the Board's decision is: 1) affirmed in part where the government did not breach the express terms of the contract or a later agreement to consider exceptions; but 2) vacated in part where the Board erred when it concluded that it 'need not decide' plaintiff's implied duty and constructive change claims.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a case arising from a bitter bidding dispute for a contract to strip and repaint the Commodore Barry Bridge, in which the contracting agency rejected the lowest bidder-plaintiff because it determined that plaintiff was not a 'responsible' contractor, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff is: 1) affirmed in part where the district court did not err in ruling that defendant acted arbitrarily and capriciously; but 2) vacated in part where the district court abused its discretion in directing defendant to award the contract to plaintiff.

(United States Supreme Court) - In an insurance class action arising in the context of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA) authorization of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract with private carriers for federal employees' health insurance, 5 U.S.C. section 8902(a) and (d), the Missouri Supreme Court's decision, preventing federal employee insurance carries from seeking subrogation and reimbursement if there is a conflicting state law, is reversed where, because contractual subrogation and reimbursement prescriptions plainly 'relate to . . . payments with respect to benefits,' section 8902(m)(1), they override state laws barring subrogation and reimbursement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a 2015 Nevada statute designed to protect construction general contractors from certain claims was not preempted by ERISA. A group of labor unions brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Nevada's SB 223, limiting general contractors' vicarious liability for their subcontractors' unpaid labor debts, was preempted by ERISA. Finding no preemption, the Ninth Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment for the unions.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the State of Texas should not have been enjoined from terminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood facilities. Concluded that the district court applied an incorrect standard of review, in this case involving the facilities' alleged noncompliance with accepted medical and ethical standards. Vacated a preliminary injunction and remanded.

(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.

You have been sent a MALICIOUS file!

No, you did not request a changelog and yes you will get malware if you click on the link!

Poorly formatted, fake UPS Shipping service report, including malware.

An unknown purchase order inquiry from Captain Fabri. You can smell the virus a mile away.

Royal Mail Shipment scam with a ZBot Trojan attached to it.

Super-Loan.co.za are super spammers and when you go to their website you will find that it is super useless, i.e. it only shows the Microsoft IIS7 status page. Super professional.

Cliff is offering you the job of shipping manager assistant. The problem is, there is no job, so there is no salary, only a scammer waiting to take your money. This is the worst type of scammer, taking money from unemployed people.

Malware delivered via a link in a fake DHL Notification e-mail.

Malware delivered through fake UPS tracking page, attached as an HTML file.

Malware distributed via Dropbox with the help of fake eFax e-mails

A fake Amazon order report, with a touch of false anti-virus peace of mind...

At the end of the month you need your salary... not a virus.

Fax or malware? This is clearly malware.

From payroll to fax to a homicide suspect. Where do these spammers get their inspiration from?

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied a petition for review of a Pennsylvania state regulators' decision to grant a Clean Water Act certification to a natural gas pipeline project. An environmental organization raised various procedural and substantive arguments against the environmental regulators' issuance of a water quality certification. On judicial review, the Third Circuit held that the environmentalists' challenge failed on the merits. Prior to reaching the merits, the panel discussed in detail questions regarding its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a suit arising out of press releases issued by the Food and Drug Administration which warned consumers of a possible link between plaintiffs' tomatoes and an outbreak of salmonella, the Claims Court's dismissal of the amended complaint is affirmed where the press releases did not effect a regulatory taking.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - In a suit arising out of alleged fraud by officers of a corporation acquired by defendant, a preliminary injunction preventing defendant from proceeding with an arbitration hearing on the fraud claims is affirmed where the merger agreement between the two companies did not mandate arbitration of the types of claims defendant asserted against plaintiffs.

(United States First Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of a merger agreement in which one party agreed to indemnify the other against a purely hypothetical tax loss, involving the issue of whether the prepayments and credits, and resulting tax refunds, affect the tax indemnification obligation of the sellers, the District Court's judgment in favor of sellers is vacated and remanded for further proceedings where; 1) the indemnification provision is ambiguous as to how the tax refunds affect the indemnification obligation of the sellers; and 2) the parties' arguments about the purpose and negotiating history of the provision cannot be resolved without the aid of a fact-finder.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff appealed from order of the probate court denying their request that special needs trust be distributed to them rather than Department of Health Care Services. Appeals court found Department was entitled to reimbursement for Medi-Cal expenses.

(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.

Kindred Spirits Met When Japanese Noise Legend Merzbow Got Together In The Studio With Fellow Countryman Keiji Haino And Drummer Balazs Pandi For A New Recording On RareNoiseRecords

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming a district court decision holding that a putative class action suit that organic labeled baby formula included ingredients not permitted under the Organic Foods Production Act because their state law claims were preempted by the Act.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of a case in which a class of purchasers of securities issued by a drug company that the investors said recklessly misled them about their target date for submitting an application to the Food and Drug Administration for a drug approval because the court did not err in finding that they had failed to state a claim.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action filed against the producer of several antiviral drugs used in the treatment of AIDS by an organization providing medical care to AIDS sufferers seeking to have patents declared invalid because the action failed to meet the requirements of the Declaratory Judgment Act.

(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.

Amnesty advocates are working overtime to portray illegal migrants as heroic essential workers in the national campaign to contain China's coronavirus.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent action, construing the term 'pivot table' in relation to two of plaintiff's patents, the district court's 1) claim construction is affirmed as supported by intrinsic evidence; but its 2) indefiniteness determination is reversed because the claims' scopes are reasonably certain.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the certification of a class action alleging that a software company's downloadable product to improve computer speed and performance was a scam. Held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a nationwide class and an Illinois subclass of software purchasers.

(Supreme Court of California) - The issue is whether or not California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act can be used to bring a claim against a business when the Plaintiff visits the business’s website with the intention of using its services only to be allegedly denied full and equal access to its services and then Plaintiff leaves without entering into an agreement with the service provider. The Court answered in the affirmative.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the certification of a class action alleging that a software company's downloadable product to improve computer speed and performance was a scam. Held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a nationwide class and an Illinois subclass of software purchasers.

(Supreme Court of California) - The issue is whether or not California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act can be used to bring a claim against a business when the Plaintiff visits the business’s website with the intention of using its services only to be allegedly denied full and equal access to its services and then Plaintiff leaves without entering into an agreement with the service provider. The Court answered in the affirmative.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an arbitration clause in an online consumer contract was unenforceable because the consumer did not have reasonable notice of and manifest his assent to it. The consumer was suing a company that sells protection plans for consumer products. Affirmed the denial of the company's motion to compel arbitration.

“The three new positive COVID-19 cases reported in Wednesday evening’s press conference were residents in three of our Long Term Care homes,...

Essent Group Ltd. reported net income for the quarter ended March 31, 2020 of $149.5 million or $1.52 per diluted share, compared to $127.7 million...

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an arbitration clause in an online consumer contract was unenforceable because the consumer did not have reasonable notice of and manifest his assent to it. The consumer was suing a company that sells protection plans for consumer products. Affirmed the denial of the company's motion to compel arbitration.

(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.

Prayer and a ministry of presence can make an eternal difference.

My grandmother died ten days ago. She was 88 years old. By all accounts she had lived a colorful life, with three husbands, three children, six grandchildren, and seven great-grandchildren. She routinely stated her intention to live another decade. Even though her body was failing her through arthritis and muscle loss, she hadn’t lost her desire to live, to see those great-grandchildren grow up, to enjoy the daffodils in April. But when she was diagnosed with colon cancer in early January and decided not to put herself through surgery, she knew her days were numbered, and she started to prepare to die.

Much has been written of late about the problems with end-of-life care in America. In an earlier post (Have Christians Made an Idol of Life?) I wrote about Ezekiel Emanuel’s argument that Americans should aspire to die around age 75. For many Americans, the final years are a series of financially debilitating medical decisions that—more importantly—result in suffering for patient and family members alike. Many studies have shown that doctors aren’t well-equipped to talk about death with patients, and often physicians suggest further treatments even when they know it will not serve the patient well. For the alleviation of physical suffering and financial burden, a national conversation about health care and end-of-life care has begun. (See, for instance Dying Shouldn’t Be So Brutal in the New York Times, The Ultimate End-of-Life Plan in the Wall Street Journal, and More on Faith and Life Care here in Christianity Today.)

In my grandmother’s case, good health insurance, financial plenty, devoted family members, and a daughter who had worked for years as an oncology nurse secured ...

Continue reading...

A new study demonstrates the role of culture in welcoming children with Down syndrome.

For years, I have read news headlines in Christian and secular outlets, from conservatives and liberals alike, stating that “90% of babies with Down syndrome are aborted.” As I have argued before, and as a new study demonstrates, it’s just not true. Correcting this common misconception matters both in providing accurate information to pregnant women and in normalizing the experience of receiving a child with Down syndrome.

Last week, the American Journal of Medical Geneticspublished a study about the birth rates of babies with Down syndrome in the United States. The study estimates live births of babies with Down syndrome from 1900-2010, with a focus upon the effect of prenatal screening programs within the United States on the population of babies with Down syndrome. After factoring in the expected number of live births, miscarriages, and stillbirths, it then posits a “reduction rate.” This reduction rate demonstrates the number of babies with Down syndrome that are not born as a result of selective abortion.

To be specific, in 2006-2010 theses researchers estimate around 5,300 babies were born with Down syndrome annually. During this same time period, approximately 3,100 babies with Down syndrome were selectively aborted each year. Around 800 of those aborted babies would have died before birth, so without selective abortion, the researchers estimate there would be around 7,600 live births with Down syndrome. The reduction rate of babies with Down syndrome in the United States in 2010 was around 30 percent. In other words, without selective abortion, the number of babies born with Down syndrome in recent years would have been about 30 percent higher than it actually has been.

So why ...

Continue reading...

Curren$y, Trademark And Young Roddy Have Set The Stage For Their Long-awaited Full-length Album, "Plan Of Attack", Dropping Worldwide On Oct. 11th.