(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a negligence action, the Appellate Division's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where there is a material question as to whether the escape of defendant's calf onto the road was a proximate cause of decedent's death in car accident while she was trying to assist.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Convictions for using or carrying a firearm to commit a federal crime of violence were remanded for resentencing after previous 7th Circuit opinions and the Supreme Court's decision in US v. Davis found the term "crime of violence" to be unconstitutionally vague.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Those convicted for activities in connection with a New Orleans gang had their convictions vacated because Supreme Court precedent showed the residual clause of their convicting statute was unconstitutionally vague.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An unconstitutional conviction did not occur when an attorney confirmed he no longer disputed restitution while in chambers but repeated this withdrawal in open court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A state court gun possession finding was conclusive as to that factual point in a subsequent federal suit seeking damages for constitutional violations.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was an investigator employed by the California State Lottery. He sued Defendant alleging retaliation in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act. Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint. The trial court denied the motion. The appeals court agreed finding Plaintiff had established his complaint arose from a protected activity and that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed. A motion to correct a 1996 sentence as a career offender was not timely because the motion asserts a right not recognized in caselaw.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of two individual defendants in a Fourteenth Amendment case arising from the self-mutilation of a man held at a medical health complex was upheld. There was insufficient evidence of their culpability.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a case to determine whether SB 2460, which the New Jersey Legislature enacted in 2014 (2014 Law) to partially repeal certain prohibitions on sports gambling, violates federal law the district court's judgment that the 2014 Law violates the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S.C. sections 3701-3704, is affirmed where PASPA, but its terms, prohibits states from authorizing by law sports gambling, and the 2014 Law does exactly that.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action challenging NCAA rules prohibiting student-athletes from being paid for the use of their names, images, and likenesses, the district court's judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the NCAA's rules are not exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, and are subject to the Rule of Reason; and 2) the district court's permanent injunction ordering the NCAA to allow members schools to pay students up to $5,000 a year in deferred compensation was erroneous.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an injury action arising from a skiing accident, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant ski resort is affirmed where plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence of the link between his injuries and the assumed negligence of the defendant.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a class action suit against the National Football League (NFL), brought by former players who alleged that the NFL failed to inform them of and protect them from the risks of concussions in football, the District Court's judgment is affirmed where the District Court was right to certify the class and approve the settlement.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an appeal to determine where whether SB 2460, which the New Jersey Legislature enacted in 2014 to partially repeal certain prohibitions on sports gambling, violates federal law, the District Court's holding that the 2014 Law violates the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S.C. sections 3701-3704, is affirmed where PASPA by its terms, prohibits states from authorizing by law sports gambling, and the 2014 Law does exactly that.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought following the break up of plaintiff's relationship with a former boxing champion, alleging invasion of privacy (both public disclosure of private facts and false light portrayal), defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on defendant's social media postings about the termination of plaintiff's pregnancy and its relationship to the couple's separation and his comments during a radio interview concerning the extent to which plaintiff had undergone cosmetic surgery procedures, the trial court's denial of defendant's special motion to strike those causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is reversed as to with respect to plaintiff's claims for defamation and false light portrayal, as well as her cause of action for public disclosure of private facts based on defendant's comments about plaintiff's cosmetic surgery. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a suit against a principal-defendant of a private high school brought by a student's parent-plainitff, alleging that plaintiff's First Amendment right of freedom of assembly and his state-law right to be free from the intentional infliction of emotional distress were violated by defendant in banning him from attending virtually all school events, on or off school property, because of his opposition to defendant's bullying and harassing efforts to compel plaintiff's daughter to remain a member of the girls varsity basketball team, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part as to the denial of defendant's motion for qualified immunity, to the extent that he barred plaintiff from entering school property to attend spectator sports contests to which the public was invited, and caused plaintiff's removal from a non-school, privately owned stadium at which Johnson was present as an invitee of the owner; and 2) reversed in part where qualified immunity should have been granted to defendant the extent that he barred plaintiff from entering school property for purposes other than attending sports contests, given the lack of an established First Amendment right of general access to school property.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed summary judgment against private landowners in a dispute regarding the boundaries of a hiking and biking trail built along the path of an old railroad easement. The landowners, whose properties abutted the rail corridor, sued the county government to challenge the nature, scope, and width of the corridor covered by the easement. The county counterclaimed asking the court to quiet title. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the county was entitled to prevail.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed on summary judgment that a YMCA was not liable for negligence in the death of a man who died of sudden cardiac arrest after playing soccer on a YMCA-owned field that was rented to a nonmember league. Held that the YMCA had no common-law duty of care to provide hands-on usage of an automatic external defibrillator on the facts here.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case involving an airport lease and operating agreement, brought by a company alleging that the city had a flawed bidding process, the trial court's denial of plaintiff's leave to amend its petition and complaint is affirmed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denying the petition for review of the award of disability benefits under the Defense Base Act and the application of a judicially-created 'zone of special danger' doctrine to a local national injured while employed by a government contractor overseas.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an attorney fee award to a government contractor that defeated a municipality's claim brought under the California False Claims Act, even though the contractor did not prevail in the action as a whole.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an administrative decision by the Santa Monica Community College District to allow a contractor to replace one subcontractor with another subcontractor on a construction project. Affirmed the denial of the plaintiff subcontractor's writ petition.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Revived a developer's due process and other claims against a city, a city manager and an engineering firm relating to alleged improprieties in the filing of a subdivision plat. Reversed a dismissal.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the denial of an application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The applicant contended, among other things, that the ALJ should not have allowed him to proceed pro se at the hearing.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. Plaintiff received over-payment of Social Security disability payments and the SSA sought to recoup the over-payment. Plaintiff claimed that the SSA collected the over-payment before considering plaintiff's waiver request. Plaintiff also filed for bankruptcy and lodged an adversarial proceeding against the SSA which the bankruptcy court dismissed. The issue for the Fifth circuit was whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claims. The Fifth circuit ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction and remanded to the bankruptcy court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant, housing authority, terminated Plaintiff’s federally funded subsidized housing program. The trial court ordered Defendant to vacate its order. The appeals court found that there was nothing in the Defendant’s hearing of termination that indicated an abuse of discretion and reversed the trial court’s ruling.

(MD Court of Appeals) - No. 19, Sept. Term, 2019

The shortest phishing scam e-mail ever!

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.

You need to contact Mr Mark Van Jas... but what if you are under the age of 18?

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that adjoining landowners were not entitled to injunctive relief against a company whose manufacturing plant had polluted the groundwater, in an action under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The plaintiffs did not demonstrate a need for injunctive relief, because state environmental regulators had already sued the company and the two were working together on remedial steps. Affirmed the ruling below.

(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) - 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 Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A steel mill could be sued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act but Indiana's Environmental Legal Actions Statute was precluded. The suit was timely and equitable contribution rulings were proper.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright dispute arising out of photographs posted online on defendant's social media website, the district court's summary judgment that defendant was entitled protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is reversed where: 1) the safe harbor set forth in 17 U.S.C. section 512(c) would apply if the photographs were posted at the direction of users; 2) defendant posted the photographs after a team of volunteer moderators, led by an employee of the defendant, reviewed and approved them; 3) the common law of agency applied to the defendant's safe harbor defense; and 4) there were genuine factual disputes regarding whether the moderators were the defendant's agents.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the appeal of a breach of contract and copyright infringement case involving the movie 'The Purge,' the district court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a state law claim for breach of implied-in-fact contract, is affirmed where the breach of contract claim did not arise from an act in furtherance of the right of free speech since the claim was based on defendants' failure to pay for the plaintiff's idea, not the creation, production, distribution, or content of the films.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defense in a copyright case where the assignee of certain photographs tried to sue the owner for infringement for exceeding its licensed use of certain photographs taken by photographers who had a non-exclusive licensing agreement with them because the Copyright Act doesn't permit prosecution of infringement suits by assignees that have never been the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right to the intellectual property.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of rapper Jay-Z and other defendants in the case of copyright infringement claims brought by the heir to an Egyptian composer's copyright on the arrangement of a song used as a sample in the hit single 'Big Pimpin' because the heri lacked standing to bring copyright claims. The rights had been transferred by an earlier agreement and Egyptian law recognizes a transferable right of adaptation.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that an Egyptian musical composer's heir could not sue the rapper Jay-Z and other defendants for copyright infringement. Jay- Z had sampled the composer's 1957 musical arrangement in one of his hit songs. Affirmed judgment as a matter of law for the defendants, concluding that the composer's heir lacked standing.

(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 Second Circuit) - In an international trademark action involving rival claims to the "Stolichnaya" trademarks, the district court's dismissal is vacated in part and affirmed in part where: 1) considerations of international comity precluded the district court from determining that the Russian Federation's assignment of trademark rights to plaintiff was invalid under Russian law and dismissing plaintiff's claims under section 32(1) of the Lanham Act for lack of standing; but 2) plaintiff's remaining claims are barred by res judicata and laches.

(United States First Circuit) - In an action stemming from the plaintiffs' purchase of a piece of land and the opposition the defendants mounted to the plaintiffs' plan to develop that property, alleging defendants' conduct violated various constitutional and state law provisos, including 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA), Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 12, section 11, the District Court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs did not give sufficient facts to state plausible-on-their-face claims, ones that gave rise to more than a mere possibility of liability.

(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 Second Circuit) - In a putative class action alleging that New York City grocery stores operated by Whole Foods Market-defendant systematically overstated the weights of pre‐packaged food products and overcharged customers as a result, the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of Article III standing because he failed to allege a sufficient injury in fact, is vacated where plaintiff plausibly alleged an injury in fact.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A state court gun possession finding was conclusive as to that factual point in a subsequent federal suit seeking damages for constitutional violations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. An injury suit under general maritime law failed because causation evidence was scant and the injured party couldn't prove that grease on a ship deck caused him to slip and fall.