Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The Supreme Court as a whole appears aligned and motivated to review critically federal and state asset forfeiture procedures. In addition, Attorney General Sessions last month restored the federal forfeiture of property seized by state and local law enforcement ("federal adoptions"), but with certain additional safeguards.
Features
In <i>Matal v. Tam,</i> the SCOTUS held that a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), prohibiting the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Features
<b><I>Potential Ramifications of SEC Disgorgement Being a Penalty</b></i><p> <b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article</I></b><p>In reference to <I>Kokesh</I>, most commentators have focused on the five-year limitations period, which certainly carries important ramifications for the SEC. But as we describe here, the Supreme Court's ruling that "SEC disgorgement constitutes a penalty" has more far-reaching ramifications.
Features
OnJune 19, the U.S. Supreme Court upended years of jurisprudence to hand corporations a gift: a far more stringent definition of specific jurisdiction that will force plaintiffs to bring suit in multiple state courts rather than join their claims to those in far-flung jurisdictions.
Columns & Departments
A look at a recent case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled to narrow the scope of criminal asset forfeiture.
Features
Patent owners have taken control of the patent reform debate in the 115th Congress, but it's not clear yet who's supposed to be listening.
Features
<b><i>Supreme Court Turns Back Clock</b></i><p>Although <i>TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods </i> answers the question of where a domestic corporation resides in patent infringement cases, it does not fully answer the question of where proper venue lies.
Features
Social media gained a new level of First Amendment respect on June 19 as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina law that barred registered sex offenders from posting on social networking sites.
Features
It is rare for a discovery sanction case to reach the nation's highest court. But on April 18, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in<I> Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger</I>, reversing a $2.7 million sanctions award that had been rendered by an Arizona district court and affirmed by a divided Ninth Circuit panel.
Columns & Departments
'Disparaging' Trademarks Decision<br>High Court Declines Takedown Notice/Fair Use Case