M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett
Collectively bargained for benefit agreements should be interpreted under ordinary principles of contract law without undue inferences into the intent of the parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Dept. of Homeland Security v. MacLean
Disclosure of sensitive security information to the media prohibited by a promulgated federal regulation is not a disclosure prohibited by law under the whistleblower protections of 5 U.S.C. 搂2302(b)(8)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Gelboim v. Bank of America
When a case that is part of a consolidated proceedings in multidistrict litigation is dismissed on the merits, the district court has made a final decision that to remove the case from the consolidated proceedings and the case may be appealed under 搂 1291.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Hana Financial, Inc, v. Hana Bank, et. al.
Trademark priority should be considered a factual question to be determined by a jury.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Christeson v. Roper
Substitution of a habeas petitioner鈥檚 appointed counsel is permissible pursuant to Martel. v. Clair when appointed counsel faces a conflict of interest due to appointed counsel鈥檚 possible malfeasance in abandonment of petitioner鈥檚 case.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Holt v.Hobbs
RLUIPA does not allow a Department of Corrections to enforce a policy that prohibits an inmate from growing a half inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
When reviewing a district court鈥檚 analysis of factual matters made in advocation of a patent claim, a court must apply a 鈥渃lear error鈥 instead of a de novo standard.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Jennings v. Stephens
Petitioner seeking habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel under two Wiggins theories was not required to file cross-appeal to preserve a Spisak claim because it would not enlarge Petitioner鈥檚 rights nor diminish the rights of the State under a District Court鈥檚 judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell
Under 搂 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a locality must state the reasoning for the denial of an application, and that reasoning may be issued in another written record so long as it is "essentially contemporaneously" with the denial.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans
Under the Truth In Lending Act a borrower only needs to give written notice to his lender within three years when the borrower chooses to rescind a loan; the borrower does not need to file a lawsuit.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Whitfield v. United States
The word "accompany" in 18 U.S.C. 搂2113, which creates increased penalties for actions taken during the commission of, or flight from, a bank robbery, means "to go with" even over short distances.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law