(California Court of Appeal) - Reinstated an unjust enrichment claim brought by a tax specialist that had helped a landowner reduce delinquent property taxes. Held that a foreclosure sale purchaser of the land had reason to know that the tax specialist had a contractual interest in a percentage of the tax refund. Reversed dismissal of the tax specialist's unjust enrichment claim against the foreclosure sale purchaser.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Appeals court affirmed district court's decision that the federal tax lien was enforceable even though it had errors on the document. The appeals court held that even with the errors there was adequate notice of the lien, because it conformed to the IRS code.

(California Court of Appeal) - Concluding that a defendant and their counsel unilaterally created an appeal-able order by making a motion in bad faith with the intention of creating a series of appeals that would forestall and damage the ability to proceed to trial and affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed 11 days before the scheduled trial on its merits and imposing monetary sanctions on the defense an counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Ordering the district court to vacate orders prohibiting the petitioner from expressing their views on litigation or republishing public documents over social media platforms, and requiring them to post a disclaimer prohibiting comment on the litigation because this amounted to prior restraint on their First Amendment rights.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for review challenging an Objection Letter sent by the EPA regarding draft permits for water reclamation plants in El Monte and Pomona, California, the petition is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where neither 33 U.S.C. section 1369(b)(1)(E) nor (F) of the Clean Water Act provided the court with subject matter jurisdiction to review the Objection Letter.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an antitrust lawsuit alleging a power district had attempted to entrench its monopoly by setting prices that disfavored solar-power providers, defendant's appeal of the district court order denying its motion to dismiss the suit based on the state-action immunity doctrine, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the collateral order doctrine does not allow an immediate appeal of an order denying a dismissal motion based on state-action immunity.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In the Government's challenge to the Court of International Trade's (CIT) third remand determination that certain aluminum trim kits do not fall within the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China, the CIT determination is reversed where the Department of Commerce correctly found in its initial decision that plaintiff's trim kits are aluminum extrusions which are shapes and forms made of an aluminum alloy that is covered by the scope of the Orders.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of a declaratory judgment to the plaintiff that it hadn't breached any contractual agreement with Korea, but refusing a permanent injunction barring Korea from suing them in Korean courts in a contract suit between a US defense contractor and Korea in a complex set of exchanges involved in upgrading the country's fighter planes.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversing and remanding a decision by the US Court of International Trade affirming a remand determination of the US Department of Commerce regarding the import of extruded aluminum door handles for kitchen appliances packaged for importation with plastic end caps and screws as being within the scope of relevant antidumping and countervailing duties orders where, on appeal, the Court of International Trade concluded that Commerce's scope ruling was unreasonable and unsupported by substantial evidence that resulted in a Commerce determination, under protest, that the subject products were not included within the scope of the relevant orders.

(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 Eighth Circuit) - Defendant's product infringed plaintiff-Gateway's black and white cow and spots trademark where the spots have acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning, is not functional, and is entitled to protection.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a suit for trademark infringement relating to foam earplugs in a specific bright green color used by the plaintiffs in their earplugs because the district court's conclusion that the green color mark was functional and therefore not protectable as trade dress was in error. The existence or nonexistence of alternative designs is probative of functionality or nonfunctionality and a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the color was functional remained.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded the Patent Board's prior ruling against plaintiff which had filed suit to challenge the defendant’s proposed patent. In vacating and remanding, the Appellate court ruled that plaintiff’s printed catalog was prior art and that the defendant’s proposed patent could have been based on information in that catalog and that the trial court had not properly considered the catalog in making its finding.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the organizer of a half-marathon race potentially could be liable for the cardiac-arrest death of one of the runners. Surviving family members of the runner alleged that the race organizer was negligent or grossly negligent with respect to the provision of emergency medical services. Affirming in part and reversing in part, the First Appellate District held that summary judgment was not warranted based on primary assumption of the risk and that a triable issue of material fact existed regarding gross negligence.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that two riders seriously injured while horseback riding in Wisconsin could not pursue negligence claims against trail and stable operators, because their causes of action were barred by Wisconsin's equine-immunity statute, which blocks recovery for most injuries that result from an inherent risk of equine activities. Affirmed summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings against the riders, respectively.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision of the Court of Federal Claims denying a motion for reconsideration of amended judgment or, in the alternative, relief from final judgment in a dispute relating to bidding on the procurement of medical gasses by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Pomona violated the terms of a 1993 ballot initiative prohibiting the construction of additional billboards within city limits. A citizen group challenged the city council's decision to extend a pre-existing agreement with an outdoor advertising company when the arrangement expired in 2014. Affirmed the granting of a writ of mandate.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - District court's granting of summary judgment and bench verdict for Defendant affirmed. Sherman Act claim fails where the only current feasible way to comply with Chicagoland area city commercial fire safety ordinances was to use an exclusive provider. Under Fisher v. City of Berkeley, government restraints on trade imposed unilaterally do not form the basis of a Section 1 or Section 2 claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles did not act unlawfully when it amended its General Plan to change the land use designation of a five-acre development site from light industrial to general commercial. Affirmed the denial of a neighborhood organization's petition for writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a $1.6 million jury verdict in an individual's asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit. Held that there was no admissible evidence that the defendant company supplied asbestos-cement pipes to a worksite in the 1970s; the only evidence was hearsay.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that insurers could not sue a construction subcontractor to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in defending developers in a prior construction defect action, under the facts here. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld San Francisco's decision to order a prime contractor on a public works project to replace a subcontractor. Reversed the trial court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld a federal agency's decision that a former coal miner was entitled to benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. His former employer, a coal company, had challenged the benefits award.

A SCREAMING 419 scammer. Maybe he is frustrated because nobody believes in the $700,000 prize money.

Phishing scammers using UCount awards as bait to steal your Standard Bank Internet Banking login details.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that environmental advocacy groups could not proceed with their challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's decision to permit the limited use of motor vehicles off-road in a national forest in Arizona for certain purposes. Affirmed summary judgment against the environmental groups' claims.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer was entitled to millions of dollars in compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an electrical contractor was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a short-term vacation rental business was improperly denied compensation for losses attributable to BP's 2010 oil spill. The settlement program administrator, and the district court, misinterpreted the settlement agreement's definition of a failed business. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived conservationist groups' challenge to the federal government's participation in the killing of gray wolves in Idaho. Reversed a dismissal for lack of Article III standing and remanded.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the State of Missouri lacked legal standing to sue the federal government on behalf of its citizens to challenge a federal water supply project that will divert billions of gallons of Missouri River water. The issue involved so-called parens patriae standing. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that environmental advocacy groups could not proceed with their challenge to the U.S. Forest Service's decision to permit limited motorized big game retrieval in a national forest in Arizona. Affirmed summary judgment against the environmental groups' claims.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition for review denied. The EPA did not act contrary to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in adopting a Transfer-Based Exclusion because hazardous materials are not necessarily "discarded" when they are transferred from a generator to a reclaimer along with payment. The policy was not arbitrary or capricious.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denied. A petition by environmental associations whose members live and work in areas affected by the Atlantic Sunrise Project allowing natural gas pipeline expansion was denied because challenges to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission couldn't submit the deferential standard of review of their determinations and due to binding circuit precedent.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this copyright and attorney fees case the 9th Circuit affirmed the Central District Court opinion awarding attorneys fees to defendants under 17 USC section 505. Plaintiff file suit claiming copyright infringement and breach of implied contract alleging that the film, Walk of Shame, was copied from a screenplay given to the defendants seven years before the film was released. The District Court found that there was no substantial similarity between the screen play and the film and dismissed the federal copyright claim with prejudice and dismissed the state law contract claim without prejudice. Defendants filed a motion for attorneys fees and costs which was granted. The 9th Circuit, finding no abuse of discretion affirmed the attorney fee award.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that a business owner contributorily infringed copyrighted photographs by displaying them on his website. However, remanded for further proceedings on whether the infringement was willful.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - In a case arising out of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, held that a detrimentally impacted seafood business's monetary award under a court supervised settlement program was not properly calculated. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an energy company could not proceed with its claim that Illinois environmental regulators lacked jurisdiction over its handling of hazardous‐waste acid that it transported into the state. Affirmed a dismissal based on claim and issue preclusion, among other doctrines.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer was entitled to millions of dollars in compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an electrical contractor was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.