NEXT
Sign in to follow

New Jersey Law Journal

Third Circuit Won't Revive Avastin False Claims Case

There will be no second chance for a dismissed False Claims Act case pursued by a whistleblower and numerous government entities alleging that Genentech suppressed data about Avastin, a federal appeals court has decided.
3 minute read

New York Law Journal

City of Almaty v. Ablyazov

RICO Claims' Dismissal Denied Interlocutory Appeal; Reversal Would Not End Litigation
3 minute read

National Law Journal

DC Circuit Judge Warns Ruling Could 'Destabilize' Most Arbitration Awards

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday invoked a rare public-policy exception that "threatens to destabilize" arbitration awards in future cases, a federal appeals judge said in her dissent. "The court's decision to vacate the arbitral award in this case contradicts decades of precedent delineating a narrow public policy exception and threatens as a practical matter to destabilize many, if not most, arbitral awards," Judge Nina Pillard wrote.
13 minute read

National Law Journal

DC Circuit Judge Warns Ruling Could 'Destabilize' Most Arbitration Awards

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Friday invoked a rare public-policy exception that "threatens to destabilize" arbitration awards in future cases, a federal appeals judge said in her dissent. "The court's decision to vacate the arbitral award in this case contradicts decades of precedent delineating a narrow public policy exception and threatens as a practical matter to destabilize many, if not most, arbitral awards," Judge Nina Pillard wrote.
13 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

In the Interest of L.T. and D.T., PICS Case No. 17-0644 (Pa. Super. April 7, 2017) Bowes, J. (48 pages).

By | April 28, 2017
Trial court erred in changing permanency goal from reunification to adoption after only approximately two months of services. Order of the trial court reversed.
7 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

In the Interest of A.W., a minor, PICS Case No. 17-0645 (Pa. Super. April 11, 2017) Ott, J. (11 pages).

By | April 28, 2017
Trial court abused its discretion in changing permanent placement goal from reunification to placement with legal custodian where parent had been released from incarceration five months, and had resided in county only one month, prior to goal change. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.
6 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

L.J.C. v. A.W., PICS Case No. 17-0647 (Pa. Super. April 17, 2017) Olson, J. (7 pages).

By | April 28, 2017
Order ruling that grandparent lacked standing to seek primary physical custody was not appealable where it did not completely resolve custody claims because grandparent could still seek expanded partial physical custody at pending merits hearing. Appeal quashed.
4 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

Johnson v. Sunoco, Inc., PICS Case No. 17-0646 (E.D. Pa. April 7, 2017) Surrick, U.S.D.J. (9 pages).

By | April 28, 2017
Companies operating vessels under contract with the federal government were entitled to immunity for injuries suffered from chemical exposure by vessel workers, where statute limited the recourse for such injury to suing the United States. Defendants' motion to dismiss granted.
4 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

In re Estate of Stephen Carter, PICS Case No. 17-0643 (Pa. Super. April 17, 2017) Moulton, J. (23 pages).

By | April 28, 2017
Petitioner who had presented sufficient evidence that he and his same-sex partner had intended to be married to one another and held themselves out as a married couple prior to January 1, 2005, was entitled to a declaration of common-law marriage where same-sex couples were constitutionally entitled to the same right to prove a common-law marriage as opposite-sex couples. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.
7 minute read

The Legal Intelligencer

Szabo v. Dep't of Transp., PICS Case No. 17-0651 (Pa. Commw. April 12, 2017) Cosgrove, J. (10 pages).

By | April 28, 2017
Trial court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing in appellants' challenge to DOT's taking of part of their property for road expansion because the declaration of taking did not adequately establish the extent or effect of the taking since it misidentified the property and appellants did not waive their right to raise the issue in preliminary objections to the declaration even though they failed to meet the statutory 30-day deadline. Reversed.
6 minute read

TRENDING STORIES

Law Pro Logo

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

More from ALM

More from ALM

Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.

Resources

  • 2024 Trends Report Mid-Year Special Edition: Update on Outside Counsel Billing Rates

    Brought to you by LexisNexis® CounselLink®

    Download Now

  • AI in Private Equity: A Guide for Gaining an Early Advantage

    Brought to you by Ontra

    Download Now

  • Why Are So Many Law Firms Suddenly Embracing Digital Transformation?

    Brought to you by AllRize

    Download Now

  • 2025 State Legislative Sessions

    Brought to you by LexisNexis®

    Download Now