Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
78 results for '* judge:"Judge Smith"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-10-18
Practice Area: Insurance Law
Industry: Construction | Insurance
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 24-1102
The court affirmed the judgment of the district court that the failure to pay employees' claims lodged against Hawbaker, Inc. were not covered by its Twin City Fire Insurance policy which had an exclusion for wage and hour claims.
Publication Date: 2024-08-23
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-1836
District court erred in finding a "ruse exception" to the Speedy Trial Act in case where defendant was arrested on state charges, then indicted on federal charges and the state charges were withdrawn because the STA contained no implied ruse exception. Reversed.
Publication Date: 2024-07-19
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-1836
The court reversed the order of the district court dismissing a count of appellee's indictment for an implied "ruse exception" to the Speedy Trial Act, finding that the STA contains no implied ruse exception at least for a prosecution first initiated in state court.
Publication Date: 2024-07-19
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-2084
Defendant appealed his sentence for a child-pornography related offense and court held that "image," in the moving picture or video context, unambiguously meant "frame," deference to the sentencing guidelines' commentary's 75-images rule was unwarranted under Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558, and the number of frames comprising a moving picture or video would determine the specific sentencing enhancement to be applied. Vacated.
Publication Date: 2024-05-31
Practice Area: Securities Litigation
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory | Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-8050
Petitioners sought permission to appeal the district court's order granting class certification in plaintiff's action alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 concerning a drug manufacturer's shares that were dual listed on a domestic and an international stock exchange. The court denied the petition, holding that discretionary interlocutory review was not appropriate where petitioners challenged the reach of Rule 10(b) regarding dual-listed securities, which ultimately was a merits rather than a class-certification
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2024-03-29
Practice Area: Intellectual Property
Industry: Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-2412
Petitioners sought mandamus to prevent the disclosure of documents the district court ordered released under the fraud exception to the attorney client privilege and court found petitioners failed to show a clear and indisputable abuse of discretion or error of law, a lack of an alternate avenue for adequate relief or a likelihood of irreparable injury. Motion denied.
Publication Date: 2024-01-15
Practice Area: Transportation
Industry: Aerospace | Federal Government | Non-Profit | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Steven M. Taber, Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, Pasadena, CA for petitioners.
for defendant: Justin Heminger, United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC; Rebecca Jaffe, United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC; Peter J. Kirsch, W. Eric Pilsk, Washington, DC for respondents.
Case Number: 22-1965
Court affirmed Federal Aviation Administration approval of new airport terminal construction where the record supported the FAA's determination that the project would not independently cause an adverse environmental impact and where the project had independent utility due to the complete inadequacy of the existing terminal.
Publication Date: 2023-12-25
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1264
District court erred in denying appellant's §2241 petition because district court had no subject matter jurisdiction since, as a consequence of the holding in Jones v. Hendrix, 143 S.Ct. 1857, appellant had no recourse under §2241. District court's order vacated.
Publication Date: 2023-12-04
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-2208
District court properly found that murder in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise was not a "covered offense" under the First Step Act, the sentencing package doctrine was inapplicable and defendants were ineligible for sentence reductions. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2023-12-04
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joanne M. Heisey, Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Capital Habeas Unit, West Philadelphia, PA; Brett G. Sweitzer, Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA for appellants.
for defendant: Bernadette A. McKeon, Robert A. Zauzmer, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA for appellee.
Case Number: 22-2208
Defendants were ineligible for sentencing reductions under the First Step Act where the Fair Sentencing Act only reduced mandatory minimum sentencing thresholds for certain drug possession offenses, but did not affect sentencing for drug-related murder convictions even though such convictions required a predicate drug offense.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read