Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
41 results for '* judge:"Judge Porter"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-12-06
Practice Area: Dispute Resolution
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-3135
Defendant appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration.
Publication Date: 2023-09-18
Practice Area: Insurance Litigation
Industry: Insurance | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1748
Court lacked jurisdiction to hear insurer's appeal of district court order stating insurer had a duty to defend appellee under the policy because orders declaring the meaning of a contract were not enforceable by contempt unless district court explicitly so provided and district court's order was not final and did not direct insurer to undertake any defense or advance costs. Appeal dismissed.
Publication Date: 2023-09-18
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-3299
Appellant moved for acquittal in his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. §111 for assaulting and resisting an "officer of the United States" and court found the officers involved worked for a private security company hired to provide security for a social security office, government did not prove the officers were "assistants" for purposes of §1114 and appellant was entitled to a judgment of acquittal. Motion granted.
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Employment Litigation
Industry: Health Care
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1402
Forum-selection clause requiring litigation of claims in state court was not a removal defect supporting award of fees and costs to non-removing party on motion for remand. Order of the district court vacated.
Publication Date: 2023-08-07
Practice Area: Telecommunications
Industry: State and Local Government | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-2392
Municipality's denial of variance application to construct cell tower to fill in coverage gap violated the Telecommunications Act where provider had reasonably considered alternatives to fill in the coverage gap and other alternatives suggested by the municipal zoning board would substantially increase costs for the provider and "materially inhibit" its ability to compete in the market. Order of the district court affirmed.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Gary L. Brown
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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: 2023-07-31
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-2085
District court did not violate double jeopardy in issuing a criminal sentence to appellant after restitution was imposed on appellant in SEC's civil complaint and appellant pled guilty to DOJ's criminal charges and district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's request for a downward departure and variance in his sentence. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2022-11-28
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-2655
District court erred in granting summary judgment for appellee class representatives' action alleging DOC's policy for paroling sex offenders to halfway house unconstitutionally considered "community sensitivity" because appellees were not similarly situated with non-sex offender parolees and DOC's 13 factors that evaluated a parolee's fitness for placement in a halfway house related to the success of the halfway house system and was rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Reversed.
Publication Date: 2022-09-05
Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1004
District court properly denied defendant's habeas corpus petition because, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, defendant could not develop facts to support his new merits claim in federal court and, on the state record, his trial counsel was not ineffective for arguing an alibi defense instead of self-defense. Affirmed.
Publication Date: 2022-08-01
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0850
District court did not err in applying sentencing enhancements for being the organizer or leader and for maintaining a premises for the purposes of distributing controlled dangerous substances in sentencing appellant for conspiracy to distribute and possess heroin and possession with intent to distribute heroin and methamphetamine. Affirmed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read