Expert Analysis

• A Deep Dive Into High Court's Permit Fee Ruling

  

  David Robinson and Daniel Golub at Holland & Knight explore the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that a local traffic impact fee charged to a California property owner may be a Fifth Amendment taking — and where it leaves localities and real estate developers.

• Opinion

  The Case For Overturning Florida Foreclosure Ruling

  

  A Florida appellate court's recent decision in Desbrunes v. U.S. Bank National Association will potentially put foreclosure cases across the state in jeopardy, and unless it is reconsidered, foreclosing plaintiffs will need to choose between frustrating and uncertain options in the new legal landscape, say Sara Accardi and Paige Knight at Bradley.

• McKesson May Change How AKS-Based FCA Claims Are Pled

  

  The Second Circuit’s analysis in U.S. v. McKesson, an Anti-Kickback Statute-based False Claims Act case, provides guidance for both relators and defendants parsing scienter-related allegations, say Li Yu at Dicello Levitt, Ellen London at London & Stout, and Erica Hitchings at Whistleblower Law.

• Fed. Circ. Defines Foreign IP Damages, Raises New Questions

  

  In Brumfield v. IBG, the Federal Circuit recently clarified which standard determines the extraterritoriality of the patent statute after the U.S. Supreme Court's WesternGeco decision, opening a new avenue of damages for foreign activities resulting from certain domestic activities while also creating some thorny questions, say Amol Parikh and Ian Howard at McDermott.

• 9th Circ. Arbitration Ruling Could Have Int'l Implications

  

  In Patrick v. Running Warehouse, the Ninth Circuit's recent matter-of-fact invocation of an unusual California rule in a domestic arbitration context raises choice of law questions, and could make California law a strategic option for some international arbitration parties, says Jerry Roth at FedArb.

• 5 Employer Actions Now Risky After Justices' Title VII Ruling

  

  Last week in Muldrow v. St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that harm didn't have to be significant to be considered discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, making five common employer actions vulnerable to litigation, say Kellee Kruse and Briana Scholar at The Employment Law Group.

• Series

  Being An Equestrian Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Beyond getting experience thinking on my feet and tackling stressful situations, the skills I've gained from horseback riding have considerable overlap with the skills used to practice law, particularly in terms of team building, continuing education, and making an effort to reset and recharge, says Kerry Irwin at Moore & Van Allen.

• 7th Circ. Mootness Fee Case May Curb Frivolous Merger Suits

  

  On April 15, the Seventh Circuit in Jorge Alcarez v. Akorn Inc. mapped out a framework for courts to consider mootness fees paid to individual shareholders after the voluntary dismissal of a challenge to a public company merger, which could encourage objections to mootness fees and reduce the number of frivolous merger challenges filed, say attorneys at Skadden.

• 4 Ways To Refresh Your Law Firm's Marketing Strategy

  

  With many BigLaw firms relying on an increasingly obsolete marketing approach that prioritizes stiff professionalism over authentic connection, adopting a few key communications strategies to better connect with today's clients and prospects can make all the difference, say Eric Pacifici and Kevin Henderson at SMB Law.

• What 3rd Circ. Trust Ruling Means For Securitization Market

  

  Mercedes Tunstall and Michael Gambro at Cadwalader break down the Third Circuit's March decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. National Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust, as well as predict next steps in the litigation and the implications of the decision for servicers and the securitization industry as a whole.

• 9th Circ. Ruling Puts Teeth Into Mental Health Parity Claims

  

  In its recent finding that UnitedHealth applied an excessively strict review process for substance use disorder treatment claims, the Ninth Circuit provided guidance on how to plead a Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act violation and took a step toward achieving mental health parity in healthcare, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Law.

• Using Rule 23(f) To Review Class Certification Orders

  

  Since plaintiffs on average are prevailing in certifying a class more often than not, the best-positioned class action defendants are those prepared to pursue relief under Rule 23(f) well before the district court issues its certification decision, say attorneys at K&L Gates.

• Perspectives

  Justices' Forfeiture Ruling Resolves Nonexistent Split

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in McIntosh v. U.S., holding that a trial court’s failure to enter a preliminary criminal forfeiture order prior to sentencing doesn’t bar its entry later, is unusual in that it settles an issue on which the lower courts were not divided — but it may apply in certain forfeiture disputes, says Stefan Cassella at Asset Forfeiture Law.

• Opinion

  SC's Courts Have It Wrong On Amazon Marketplace Sales Tax

  

  The South Carolina Supreme Court should step in and correct the misguided change in tax law effectuated by lower court rulings that found Amazon owes state sales tax for marketplace sales made prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wayfair v. South Dakota decision in 2018, says Hayes Holderness at the University of Richmond.

• What Have We Learned In The Year Since Warhol?

  

  In the almost year since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, which was widely seen as potentially chilling to creative endeavors, seven subsequent decisions — while illuminating to some extent — do not indicate any trend toward a radical departure from prior precedents in fair use cases, says ​​​​​​​Jose Sariego at Bilzin Sumberg.