(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a dispute involving the scope of Treasury Regulation section 25.2522(c)-3(b)(1) and arising from the transfer of membership units in an LLC partly as a gift and partly by sale to two trusts with simultaneous gifts of LLC units to two charitable foundations under a reallocation clause, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where Section 25.2522(c)-3(b)(1), upon trigger of the reallocation clause, does not bar a charitable deduction equal to the value of the additional units the foundations will receive.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeal insofar as it determined that a 2011 analysis of greenhouse gas emission impacts prepared as part of a project for the development of transportation infrastructure in San Diego was inadequate and required revision.

(KS Supreme Court) - No. 114,937

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's summary judgment to the defendants in a trademark infringement suit, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether defendant's use of 'all-in-one' was protected by the fair use defense and that the district court erred in applying fair use analysis after determining that plaintiff presented no evidence of likely confusion.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a Social Security disability benefits case, addressed the effect of a vocational expert's refusal to share privately collected data. The applicant's counsel wanted to see data about the labor market that the expert had relied upon in estimating the number of jobs available in the economy for someone with the applicant's characteristics. However, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that, despite the expert's refusal to turn over this private data, her testimony could still be considered "substantial evidence" in federal court. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the limits of a State's power to tax a trust. Struck down a North Carolina requirement that a trust must pay income tax to the State whenever the trust's beneficiaries live in the State -- regardless of whether the beneficiaries have received, can demand, or will ever receive a distribution of trust income. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, in this due process challenge brought by a family trust.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

This page provides answers to frequently asked questions about Program Integrity issues for the second round of the 2009 negotiated rulemaking activities for higher education. This page provides information on credit hours.

RT @IsaacScher__: NEW: Half of all Brooklynites are white, but 97.5% of the borough's social distancing arrests were of people of color.

Frozen fans can rejoice. Disney On Ice presents Magical Ice Festival which opens in Australia in June for the first time and will feature characters from the hit movie Frozen. The 2016 ice spectacular will also present the enchanting adventures of Disney’s The Little Mermaid, Tangled and Beauty and the Beast, presented by popular hosts Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the trial court's decision which had denied Plaintiff's challenge to the Patent Board’s denial of its patent. The government sought to recover costs and attorney’s fees under section 145 of the Patent Act. The trial court held that costs may be recovered under section 145, but not attorney fees.

(WV Supreme Court of Appeals) - No. 18-0653

WHILE most players his age have jumped two or three clubs, Mitch Aubusson has stayed loyal to the Roosters and joined some exclusive company in the process.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until the Copyright Office registers the copyright. The plaintiff, a news organization that sued a news website for infringement, argued that the relevant date should be when the Copyright Office receives a completed application for registration, even if the Register of Copyrights has not yet acted on that application. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The court concluded the 44 articles at issue were not works made for hire under the Copyright Act of 1976. District Court’s summary judgement in favor of RIT and denying the motion for partial summary judgement by the Estate reversed. Remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Judgment dismissing this qui tam action alleging that defendants engaged in a scheme of kickbacks, bribes, or rebates designed to induce referrals of Medicare and Medicaid business, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's former general counsel, through his conduct in this qui tam action, violated his ethical obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9(c) which, in relevant part, prohibits lawyers from using confidential information of a former client protected by Rule 1.6 to the disadvantage of the former client, except to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent the client from committing a crime; and 2) the district court did not err by dismissing the complaint as to all defendants, and disqualifying plaintiff, its general partners, and its outside counsel on the basis that such measures were necessary to avoid prejudicing defendants in any subsequent litigation on these facts.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - In an action by a company which provides security and consulting services to casino operators, seeking a declaratory judgment that an Indian tribal court lacked jurisdiction and an order compelling arbitration, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the tribal courts could exercise adjudicatory jurisdiction over the tribe's claims against plaintiff for trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion of tribal trade secrets. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the tribal court did not have jurisdiction under the second Montana exception over the tribe's claim for conversion of tribal funds.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's state law business tort claims is vacated and remanded, where the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims because: 1) defendant's allegedly inaccurate statements regarding its patent rights concerned conduct taking place entirely in Taiwan; 2) the use of a patented process outside the United States is not an act of patent infringement; and thus, 3) there is no prospect of a future U.S. infringement suit arising out of the Taiwan company's use of the parties' products in Taiwan, and accordingly no prospect of inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a defendant was not entitled to prevailing party attorney fees under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, enacted in 2016, because the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case without prejudice meant no one had prevailed here. Affirmed the denial of fees.

Versatile athlete Garry Young may only be 10, but his love of sport has been a lifelong commitment.

(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.

(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.

(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 Fourth Circuit) - In a class action brought on behalf of plaintiff and other participants in defendant-employer's 401(k) retirement savings plan alleging that defendant-employer breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it liquidated two funds held by the plan on an arbitrary timeline without conducting a thorough investigation, thereby causing a substantial loss to the plan, judgment for defendant is: 1) affirmed in part, where the district court properly concluded that defendant-employer breached its duty of procedural prudence and therefore bore the burden of proof as to causation; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where the district court then failed to apply the correct legal standard in assessing defendant-employer's liability.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action for breach of an indemnity agreement, the trial court's grant of summary judgment requiring defendant to pay plaintiff approximately $6.07 million pursuant to the indemnity agreement is affirmed where although the signatory did not have actual authority to execute the indemnity agreement on defendant's behalf, in these circumstances, the person's signature binds defendant pursuant to former Corporations Code section 17157(d) (now section 17703.01(d)), provided that the other party to the agreement does not have actual knowledge of the person's lack of authority to execute the agreement on behalf of defendant.

(NY Supreme Court) - 529952

(NY Supreme Court) - 528503

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of an insurance dispute. A company that sued its workers' compensation insurer over premium hikes contended that the case did not have to be arbitrated because the California Insurance Code invalidated the parties' arbitration agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company could not bring a subrogation claim against its insured's tenant (a furniture manufacturing business) for amounts paid out under a fire insurance policy, even if the tenant was negligent. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.