To read more about the items below, click above for a PDF of the newsletter.
- Plaintiffs in False Claims Act suits must demonstrate that the allegedly false claims were actually material to the government’s payment decision.
- Patent holders’ property rights should not be eviscerated based on a finding that their counsel in an infringement action engaged in litigation misconduct.
- In drafting regulations governing “bioengineered” labeling for food products, the Department of Agriculture must be mindful of the First Amendment rights of food producers.
- EPA should take cost-benefit considerations into account whenever it drafts new environmental regulations.
- FDA is imposing unwarranted regulatory requirements on medical-device manufacturers by improperly classifying some devices as “drugs.”
- Suits alleging that companies engaged in an antitrust conspiracy should be dismissed early on, in the absence of factual allegations supporting the conspiracy claim.
- If workers chose to bring personal belongings to work in a bag, they are not entitled to be paid for the time it takes to inspect the bag.
- Property owners who allege that the government has taken their property without paying compensation ought to be permitted to assert those claims in federal court.
- Before California requires manufacturers to place Prop 65 cancer warnings on their products, they have a right to a hearing on whether the products cause cancer.
- After alien felons complete their prison sentences, they should remain in federal detention while awaiting deportation proceedings.
- U.S. Supreme Court overturns appeals court decision that upheld Berkeley ordinance requiring health warnings on cell phones.
- U.S. Supreme Court prohibits SEC from conducting enforcement hearings before administrative law judges not properly appointed as “officers” of the United States.
- U.S. Supreme Court agrees to decide whether antitrust claims may be asserted by individuals who did not directly purchase from the alleged antitrust violator.
- U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to New York State law that abrogates contract and property rights of workers’ compensation insurers.
- U.S. Supreme Court enforces a reasonable statute of limitations for the filing of class actions.
- Fourth Circuit affirms exclusion of “expert” testimony from a products-liability lawsuit where the experts deviated from accepted scientific standards in concluding the defendant’s drug caused the plaintiffs’ illnesses.