US Supreme Court Report Card: How Third Circuit, Pa. High Court Fared in 2022-2023 Term, Part 1
This month's column will summarize three cases: the one case on direct review from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the two cases on direct review from the Third Circuit. Then, next month column will focus on the five cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court resolved circuit splits in which the Third Circuit was implicated on one side or the other.
July 10, 2023 at 11:35 AM
6 minute read
Civil AppealsUpon Further Review
In its just-completed 2022-2023 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued 55 signed opinions and one per curiam opinion in argued cases. One of those rulings came in a much-anticipated case involving corporate personal jurisdiction on review from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Two others arose directly from the U.S. Court of Appeas for the Third Circuit. And another five cases involved circuit splits in which the Supreme Court identified the Third Circuit as being on one side of the split.
Of the seven cases that involved the Third Circuit, the Supreme Court sided with the Third Circuit's approach four times while disagreeing with the Third Circuit's approach the remaining three times. Thus, the Third Circuit achieved a notable record of success at the high court last term. In the one case on review from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with Pennsylvania's highest court by means of a sharply divided 5-4 ruling.
With a total of eight cases to review, this year's roundup of how the Third Circuit and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court fared at the U.S. Supreme Court during the just-concluded term will consist of two parts. This month's column will summarize three cases: the one case on direct review from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the two cases on direct review from the Third Circuit. Then, next month column will focus on the five cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court resolved circuit splits in which the Third Circuit was implicated on one side or the other.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllImmunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
5 minute readRule 126(b) Citations to Unpublished Opinions: Some of Us Still Don’t Get It
6 minute read'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute readAppeals Court Rules Pittsburgh School District Immune to Suit Over Sex Abuse of Disabled Student
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250