-
New York Real Estate Law Reporter
Owners Have No Constitutional Right to Expand Nonconforming Uses
Stewart E. Sterk
Can a municipality’s refusal to permit expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming use constitute a federal constitutional violation?
-
Commercial Leasing Law & Strategy
Stewart E. Sterk
Can a municipality’s refusal to permit expansion of a pre-existing nonconforming use constitute a federal constitutional violation? The federal district court for the Eastern District of New York faced that question and awarded summary judgment to the municipality, rejecting the landowner’s substantive due process and takings claims.
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
The First Amendment and the Lanham Act At the Supreme Court
Conor Tucker
In March, the Supreme Court heard a blockbuster trademark case with significant implications for trademark law. After argument, reversal seems likely as questioning from the justices suggests that a long-standing precedent is unlikely to survive unscathed. But the Court also indicated concern over the broader implications of this case in the arts, entertainment, and publishing. Here’s what you need to know about Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products.
-
Supreme Court Finds 2017 Bankruptcy Fee Increases Unconstitutional But Leaves Remedy Unclear
Theresa A. Driscoll
The Supreme Court concluded that because the 2017 amendments exempted debtors located in two States, it was not “uniform” as it did not apply equally to all debtors regardless of where they were situated and, therefore, the statute was unconstitutional.
-
Efforts to Provide Out-of-State Abortion Travel Benefits Face Rapidly Shifting Legal Landscape
Jessica Mach
Employment attorneys say the breadth of new state laws — and the pace at which they are going into effect — means in-house counsel at companies trying to create workarounds for employees in states with restrictive abortion laws by providing benefits that would allow them to travel out-of-state to access abortion services will need to be on high alert, since keeping up on top of the laws will be key to limiting their exposure to litigation — or even criminal penalties.
-
Alaina Lancaster
A federal appeals court found that law enforcement violated a Google user’s constitutional rights when it opened email attachments the platform flagged as child pornography through an automated system.
-
Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
When law enforcement seeks to compel a subject to provide a passcode to allow them to rummage through a cellphone, courts have not spoken with a unified voice. Some, including New Jersey’s highest court, have arrived at the dubious conclusion that requiring an individual to communicate cellphone passcodes to the government does not warrant Fifth Amendment protection. Commentators had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would reject that expansive view, however, the Supreme Court declined to wade in, seemingly guaranteeing that continued uncertainty on this critical issue will continue to bedevil criminal practitioners.
-
Third Circuit: Assertions of Sovereign Immunity Can Be Scrutinized In the Bankruptcy Context
Corinne Ball
In an era of increasing participation and regulation by various governmental agencies in businesses eligible for bankruptcy relief, the Third Circuit's decision in Venoco is an important development for assessing the extent to which a distressed business can address action by a governmental unit through a bankruptcy case.
-
Bankruptcy Court Rules U.S. Trustee Amended Fee Schedule Unconstitutional
Francis J. Lawall and Marcy J. McLaughlin
The Office of U.S. Trustee is known among practitioners as the “watchdog” of the bankruptcy process. To fund the U.S. Trustee, Chapter 11 debtors must pay quarterly fees. Following a recent substantial increase to the U.S. Trustee fee schedule, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found the amended fee schedule to be unconstitutional because it was being applied nonuniformly to Chapter 11 debtors around the country.
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Further Guidance On Article III Standing To Appeal PTAB Decisions Coming Soon
Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone
How, if at all, can a non-injured party that challenges a patent before the PTAB and loses may then demonstrate Article III standing to appeal to the federal courts from the PTAB’s decision upholding the patent’s validity.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
