Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
323 results for '* court:"THIRD CIRCUIT"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-08-28
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Energy
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Bibas
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Justin L. Swidler, Swartz Swidler, Haddonfield, NJ for appellants.
for defendant: Kimberly Cheeseman, Michael C. Crow, Katherine D. Mackillop, Norton Rose Fulbright, Houston, TX for appellees.
Case Number: 22-1613
Court adopted test to determine whether employer required clothing or protective/safety gear was integral to an employee's job duties, which included factors such as the location of changing, whether government regulations required the clothing/gear, and the type of clothing or gear involved.
Publication Date: 2023-08-28
Practice Area: Class Actions
Industry: Insurance
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John P. Elliott, Kyle M. Elliott, Stewart J. Greenleaf, Jr., Mark J. Schwemler, Elliott Greenleaf, Blue Bell, PA for petitioner.
for defendant: Charles Kannebecker, Milford, PA for respondent.
Case Number: 22-8056
The issue before the court was when the timeframe for filing an interlocutory appeal of a class certification order could be extended under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which authorizes interlocutory review of orders "granting or denying class-action certification" of petitions filed within 14 days of the order. Here, petitioner filed a Rule 23(f) petition 14 days after the district court had revised its class certification order but months after the original order certifying the class. Respondent, who had received disabilit
Publication Date: 2023-08-21
Practice Area: Insurance Litigation
Industry: Insurance | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Fisher
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Patrick J. Murphy, Quarles & Brady LLP, Milwaukee, WI; Robert L. Byer, Thomas E. Sanchez, Duane Morris, Pittsburgh, PA; Gavin Fung, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Boston, MA; Ralph J. Luongo, Kennedys CMK, Philadelphia, PA for appellants.
for defendant: Robert R. Anderson, III, Christopher A. Johnson, Margaret Truesdale, Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dyn, Chicago, IL; Timothy R. Smith, Pion, Nerone, Girman, Winslow & Smith; Ralph J. Luongo, Kennedys CMK, Philadelphia, PA; Myles D. Morrison, James P. Ruggeri, Ruggeri Parks & Weinberg, Washington, DC; Michael A. Shiner, Tucker Arensberg, Pittsburgh, PA for appellees.
Case Number: 21-3032
Noting that the exception to the final judgment rule for appellate court jurisdiction required injunctive relief and that none of the District Court's partial summary judgment orders rose to the functional equivalent of an injunction, the court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to review the orders.
Publication Date: 2023-08-21
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Hardiman
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Caitlin D. Kekacs, Andrew D. Roth, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, DC; Michael J. Healey, Healey & Hornack, Pittsburgh, PA for appellant.
for defendant: Samuel J. Pasquarelli, Sherrard German & Kelly, Pittsburgh, PA for appellee.
Case Number: 22-2142
Union local members who disaffiliated from parent union had standing as third-party beneficiaries of parent union's constitution/contract with the local to seek equitable distribution of the local's assets to a new independent local.
Publication Date: 2023-08-21
Practice Area: Education Law
Industry: Education
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Krause
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Gary F. Lynch, Lynch Carpenter, Pittsburgh, PA; Jeffrey A. Klafter, Seth R. Lesser, Klafter Lesser, Rye Brook, NY; Eric Poulin, Poulin, Willey & Anastopoulo, Charleston, SC; Roy T. Willey, IV, Anastopoulo Law Firm, Charleston, SC; Stuart A. Carpey, Plymouth Meeting, PA; Edward W. Ciolko, Nicholas Colella, Jamisen A. Etzel, Gary F. Lynch, Lynch Carpenter, Pittsburgh, PA for appellants.
for defendant: James C. Martin, Colin E. Wrabley, Reed Smith, Pittsburgh, PA; Gerard A. Dever, Roberta D. Liebenberg, Fine Kaplan & Black, Philadelphia, PA; Burt M. Rublin, Ballard Spahr, Philadelphia, PA for appellees.
Case Number: 21-2013
College students plausibly stated breach of implied contract claim from universities' switch to online learning due to COVID-19 pandemic where marketing materials emphasized benefits of on-campus instruction from attending each university.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Patrick S. Montoya, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Ervin A. Gonzalez
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Chemicals and Materials
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Ambro
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Maureen Farrell, Adam T. Muery, Muery & Farrell, Austin, TX for appellants
for defendant: David J. Baldwin, Berger Harris, Wilmington, DE; Irving M. Geslewitz, Edward D. Shapiro, Much Law, Chicago, IL for appellees.
Case Number: 22-2181
District court erred in ordering arbitration where dispute resolution clause imposing narrow scope of review of solely factual issues during a short window of time indicated that the dispute resolution provision constituted an expert determination rather than an arbitration.
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Environmental Law
Industry: Energy | Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew C. Simpson, Andrew C. Simpson Law Offices, Christiansted, VI for petitioner.
for defendant: Todd S. Kim, Heather E. Gange, United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC for respondent.
Case Number: 23-1094
EPA's "reactivation" policy deeming a shut-down facility as "new" upon resumption of operations improperly extended scope of Prevention of Significant Deterioration program under the Clean Air Act, which expressly applied only to new and modified facilities.
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Tax
Industry: Federal Government | Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Clint Carpenter, Arthur T. Catterall, United States Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC; Emily J. Giometti, Cincinnati, OH; Lisa M. Rodriguez, Office of District Council, Internal Revenue Service, Newark, NJ; Mary H. Weber, Internal Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel, Cincinnati, OH for appellant.
for defendant: Gregory G. Garre, Eric Konopka, Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC; Bryan M. Killian, William F. Nelson, James G. Steele, III, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Washington, DC for appellee.
Case Number: 22-1193
Legal expenses incurred by generic drug manufacturers to defend against patent infringement lawsuits were tax-deductible where they were ordinary and necessary business expenses as patent litigation was separate from the FDA approval process for ANDAs.
Publication Date: 2023-08-07
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jonathan S. Kanter, Doha Mekki, Maggie Goodlander, David B. Lawrence, Daniel E. Haar, Nikolai G. Levin, Peter M. Bozzo, Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Washington, DC for plaintiff-appellant.
for defendant: Melissa Arbus Sherry, Amanda P. Reeves, Lindsey S. Champlin, David L. Johnson, Charles S. Dameron, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Lawrence E. Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Christopher S. Yates, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy G. Cameron, Peter T. Barbur, David R. Marriott, Daniel K. Zach, Michael K. Zaken, Lindsey J. Timlin, Hannah L. Dwyer, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY; Amanda L. Wait, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Daniel K. Hogan, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE for defendant-appellees.
Case Number: 22-2806
Rather than employ the hypothetical monopolist test analysis for determining product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's analysis using the actual market for refined sugar as the product market definition.
Publication Date: 2023-07-24
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Construction | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Rendell
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Matthew Beebe, Meluney Alleman & Spence, Lewes, DE; James M. Sullivan, Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf, New York, NY for appellant.
for defendant: Kasey H. DeSantis, Neal J. Levitsky, Fox Rothschild, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: 22-2532
Bankruptcy court correctly denied untimely motion to reopen bankruptcy case to file complaint challenging the dischargeability of debt on grounds of fraudulent transfer where the rules provided inflexible deadlines for the motion due to the limited exceptions under which bankruptcy courts could enlarge the time to file.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read