Search

The article discusses the U.S. court case Gunn v. Minton wherein a security broker Vernon Minton filed a claim against the National Association of Security Dealers (NASD) for patent infringement. The U.S. District Court rejected the plea of Minton and gave its decision in favor of the Organization. The Federal Court of Appeals denied the legal malpractice claim filed by Minton and affirmed the ruling of the district court.

The article discusses the decision from a U.S. district court in the northern District of Georgia, CFPB v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C.,et al. It states that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) contends Hanna's lawyers violated consumer protection law because they are not diligently lawyering against consumers. It mentions that Hanna Settlement Demonstrates Erosion of Lawyer Independence.

The article discusses the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in a case National Wildlife Federation v. FEMA related to implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on endangered species by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the Puget Sound region. It states that National Wildlife Federation (NWF) sued FEMA for not consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

The article focuses on the court case American Tort Reform Association v. OSHA, 2013. It discusses whether federal regulatory programs preempt state tort law. It is reported that the case is related to the Occupational Safety and Health Act authorizes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards that are "reasonably necessary or appropriate to provide for safe or healthful places of employment."

The article focuses on the court cases Agape Church, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 2013, and Daimler Trucks North America, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013. It discusses how these D.C. Circuit decisions illustrate the importance of context in determining whether a final rule is a "logical outgrowth" of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

The article discusses the U.S. Fifth Circuit decisions regarding the Transocean's insurance case. The Fifth Circuit issued its original decision in March 2013 reversing the district court's ruling that BP was not entitled to insurance coverage under Transocean's policies. The court also noted the ambiguities of drilling contract and insurance policy and certified the issue to the Texas Supreme Court.

The article focuses on the District court case Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc. In the case buyers sued their real estate agent for violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) prohibition on payments of fees in exchange for referrals. It mentions that the case was based on the business relationship between the title company and the realtor, they shared common ownership.

The article focuses on the court cases Loving v. Internal Revenue Service, 2014 WL 519224. In the case, the D.C. Circuit rejected an argument for Chevron deference and affirmed a district court order striking down an IRS rule that would have regulated tax-return preparers as "representatives." The court referened to the original 1884 statute, which referred to "agents, attorneys, or other persons representing claimants."

The article focuses on the court cases Verizon v. FCC, 2014 WL 113946 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 14, 2014) and FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 121 (2000). In the first case, the court ruled that agencies must be very careful to address prior agency decisions that may be relevant to their current action. In the second case, the Supreme Court had rejected an FDA interpretation of its statutory authority based in part on prior FDA statements inconsistent with its latest interpretation