Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  Wash. Amazon Ruling Should Reshape Suicide Liability

  

  The Washington Supreme Court's reinstatement of negligence claims in Scott v. Amazon.com, brought by the families of people who died by suicide after purchasing chemicals online, signals a reckoning for digital commerce and the rejection of the defense that online marketplaces are merely passive technology platforms, says Donald Fountain at Clark Fountain.

• Axed Trade Secret Award Cautions Against Bundling Damages

  

  The Fifth Circuit's recent ruling in Trinseo v. Harper, vacating a $75 million jury verdict for trade secret misappropriation due to a bundled damages model, offers a strong reminder to apportion damages so a jury can award a nonspeculative figure when it credits only some alleged secrets, say attorneys at Seyfarth.

• 2 Rulings Poke Holes In Mandatory Restitution Framework

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ellingburg v. U.S., as well as the Third Circuit’s recent ruling in U.S. v. Abrams, provide criminal defense practitioners with new tools to challenge Mandatory Victims Restitution Act orders, and highlight several restitution-related issues that converged in the recent prosecution of former Frank CEO Charlie Javice, say attorneys at Lankler Siffert & Wohl.

• Pivotal 6th Circ. Ruling Threatens Decades Of NLRB Decisions

  

  The Sixth Circuit's recent decision in Brown-Forman v. National Labor Relations Board fundamentally challenged the NLRB's long-standing practice of establishing policies through adjudication rather than formal rulemaking, giving employers and unions a new avenue to procedurally attack the vast majority of its rules, say attorneys at Faegre Drinker.

• What A Court Doc Audit Reveals About Erroneous Filings

  

  My audit of 1,522 court documents from last month found that over 95% contained at least one verifiable error, with fewer than 1% showing clear indicators of artificial intelligence use — highlighting above all else that lawyers may want to focus most on strengthening their review processes, says Elliott Ash at ETH Zurich.

• Exploring When Fraud Asset Freezes Limit Right To Pick Atty

  

  The defendant’s claim in the Seventh Circuit’s pending U.S. v. Shah case that the government restrained his assets until he couldn’t afford his chosen counsel presents a useful case study in how criminal forfeiture procedure interacts with U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Sixth Amendment rights and appealing complex fraud convictions, says Elisha Kobre at Sheppard.

• How Justices' GEO Ruling Resets Gov't Contractor Litigation

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent GEO Group v. Menocal decision, holding that government contractors cannot immediately exit cases via interlocutory appeals, may increase litigation costs, strengthen plaintiffs' leverage in settlement negotiations and dampen the government's ability to attract bids on high-risk or sensitive projects, say attorneys at Wiley.

• Appellate Strategy Lessons From Pa. Excess Coverage Ruling

  

  In FedEx v. National Union Fire Insurance, a Pennsylvania state court recently set forth a clear holding that policyholders may recover postjudgment interest under excess liability insurance policies only when the policy language expressly allows, offering important takeaways for planning appeals, say attorneys at Hunton.

• Defense Counsel Options Widen As No-Bill Rate Increases

  

  Citizens impaneled on grand juries in politically motivated cases who are reasserting their role as a critical check on state power could provide criminal defense attorneys an opportunity to pursue seldom-used preindictment strategies, say attorneys at Ballard Spahr.

• How Cos. Can Prepare For 'Made In America' Ad Scrutiny

  

  The Trump administration's executive order to combat fraudulent "Made in America" claims in consumer-facing advertising, along with actions by the Federal Trade Commission, suggest a potential increased focus on consumer protection and pricing-related matters, say attorneys at Skadden.

• Similar-Looking Designs May Not Always Prove Infringement

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Range of Motion Products v. Armaid is a reminder that even a strikingly similar design might not be found to infringe upon a patented design once design features driven by functionality are filtered out from consideration, say attorneys at BCLP.

• Series

  Mich. Banking Brief: All The Notable Legal Updates In Q1

  

  Michigan's financial services sector saw several significant developments in 2026's first quarter, including the state Department of Insurance and Financial Services' issuance of a bulletin on the use of artificial intelligence and the Michigan House's introduction of a bill based on the Model Money Transmission Modernization Act, say attorneys at Dykema.

• Pension Case Offers Entertainment Work Exception Insights

  

  A recent Ninth Circuit decision clarified that any amount of entertainment work can satisfy the entertainment industry exception under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act, reinforcing that statutory language, rather than evolving business models, dictates withdrawal liability outcomes, say attorneys at Seyfarth.

• Justices' Ruling Stresses Quick Action Against Absconders

  

  Following the U.S. Supreme Court's recent holding in Rico v. U.S. that a supervised release term is not automatically extended when a defendant absconds, probation officers and prosecutors risk being unable to address later violations if they don't act promptly to secure warrants, say attorneys at Winston & Strawn.

• Justices May Hesitate To Limit Courts' Arbitration Review

  

  Based on Monday's argument in Jules v. Andre Balazs, the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to preserve federal jurisdiction over arbitral award enforcement stemming from actions originated in federal court, a holding that would markedly limit the court's 2022 Walters v. Badgerow decision, says Ashwini Jayaratnam at DarrowEverett.