This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The state’s top court upheld fee-shifting of a contingent fee. Analogous logic could apply to the costs of litigation funding. The post Why A Delaware Supreme CourtDecision Affirming Shifting A Contingency Fee To The Losing Party Could Have Applications To Recovering The Costs Of Litigation Funding appeared first on Above the Law.
Ending one skirmish amid the legal battles at Tesla over excessive compensation, a Delaware Chancery Court on January 8 approved a deal that Teslas board of directors struck 18 months ago to return roughly $919 million to the company. Along with the settlement, Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick also approved $176.2
Delaware Chancery Courtdecisions last week touched on foot powder litigation, an AMC settlement and in-person signage as damage control for a postponed hearing. New cases ranged from Amazon sales centers to a fibrosis drug.
Recent state courtdecisions mirroring procedures employed by the Delaware Chancery Court to short-circuit the adjudication of disputes concerning ultra vires corporate acts are a welcome sign for parties who are required to litigate their corporate disputes outside of Delaware, say attorneys at Akerman.
This means that issues decided at the district or administrative court level can be binding on all other courts: district courts, administrative courts, appellate courts, and even the Supreme Court. District courtdecisions are not binding precedent because they are at the bottom.
According to AstraZeneca’s court filings, the fines alone would accrue to the tune of $530 million per month. Federal Court Found HRSA’s Advisory Opinion Was Based on Faulty Legal Grounds. As of this writing, the court is still deliberating on the relief to be granted to the manufacturer.
SPACs also got some good news recently courtesy of a Delaware Chancery Courtdecision dismissing claims challenging “de-SPAC” merger disclosures. “Except for a limited number of highly qualified first-time issuers, the clients that we are working with or that we are aware of are qualified, repeat and serial SPAC sponsors.”
Thus, ANDA patent lawsuits are ordinarily decided by bench trial–and typically by one of the Delaware district court judges. At times, a court can look to other relevant evidence, but only when the ANDA filing fails to “speak clearly and directly to the question of infringement.” 3d 1366, 1378 (Fed.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has begun 2023 with its first precedential patent decision in DexCom, Inc. In an opinion by Judge Stoll, the court affirmed a district courtdecision denying DexCom’s motion for a preliminary injunction. District Court for the District of Delaware.
In total, at least 25 cases have been filed in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Vermont. The Supreme Court sided with the fossil fuel company defendants, ruling that appellate courts could review all grounds of the remand order.
Some older Supreme Courtdecisions support that theory of consent. Some courts read [Supreme Court precedent] as effectively foreclosing [this consent-by-registration theory of jurisdiction], while others insist it remains viable.”. Goertz , 21-442. Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C.
These courts will not, however, enforce a clause when it is unreasonable or contrary to public policy. These rates were calculated by dividing (1) the total number of cases where a clause was enforced by (2) the total number of cases where the court considered the issue of enforceability. They apply federal common law.
The Federal Circuit twice reversed the District Courtdecision at issue in GSK v. Hikma was filed in November 2020 after the Court’s first decision issued in October 2020.) Teva , but Amarin v. Teva , Amarin’s case against Hikma could still end very differently if it is appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit twice reversed the District Courtdecision at issue in GSK v. Hikma was filed in November 2020 after the Court’s first decision issued in October 2020.) Teva , but Amarin v. Teva , Amarin’s case against Hikma could still end very differently if it is appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. On November 23, GM announced that it was withdrawing from the litigation. In Delaware v. and non-U.S. 19-1189 (U.S.).
After a setback before the Delaware Supreme Court, the University of Delaware is continuing its dogged effort to prevent the public from seeing the senatorial papers of President Joe Biden. The Delaware Supreme Court has now sent the matter back to the lower court for additional review. Becnel-Guzzo, Esq.,
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. The New Jersey federal court concluded that private and public interests weighed in favor of transfer. and non-U.S. filed Sept.
(Image via Getty) It is the rare judicial opinion, particularly in the IP arena, that starts with the court admitting that they got an earlier decision wrong. Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware. Penning the opinion? None other than the Third Circuits Hon. Ross Intelligence does not disappoint.
states have constituency statutes, but not yet, importantly, the great corporate law state of Delaware. [6] 6] At the colloquium, former Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice Leo Strine reiterated that corporate fiduciary duties should continue to focus solely on the interests of profits for shareholders. [7] at 117 tbl.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. Delaware v. HERE ARE RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE LITIGATION CHART. and non-U.S. BP America Inc. ,
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. She also was persuaded that Congress had ratified the lower appellate courtdecisions holding that there was a narrower scope of review.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS. Delaware v. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Koati. and non-U.S. 20-1530 (U.S. 20-1531 (U.S.
In the Dobbs litigation of 2022, 26 states asked the court to overturn Roe and its successor, Casey. States like Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon and Delaware actually protected abortion without any limit on the stage of a pregnancy — guaranteeing the right up to just before time of birth. Thus, we remain deeply divided.
Despite his alarming rhetoric, Trump has complied consistently with courtdecisions and worked within the legal system. If he or his successor ever defied the court, they would be removed from office. That will make it hard for Biden to even replace the Delaware U.S. Attorney until after the investigation.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
98 
Let's personalize your content