To read more about the items below, click the link above for a PDF of the newsletter.
NEW FILINGS
- Courts should enforce homeowner insurance contracts conditioning any assignment of benefits on the approval of all insureds and mortgagees. (Restoration 1 of Port St. Lucie v. Ark Royal Insurance Co.)
- Property owners are entitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment when the government adopts land-use restrictions that deprive the owners of all economically beneficial use of their land. (Love Terminal Partners v. U.S.)
- The Federal Trade Commission’s statutory authority to seek an injunction in federal court does not also authorize the Commission to seek monetary penalties. (FTC v. AMG Capital Management, LLC)
- State courts may not exercise general personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state company simply because the company has registered to do business in the State. (Murray v. American LaFrance, LLC)
DECISIONS
- The U.S. Supreme Court rules that when an alien is convicted of a serious felony and is later released from state prison, immigration officials must continue to detain the felon while he awaits deportation. (Nielsen v. Preap)
- The U.S. Supreme Court declines to review a troubling California state-court decision that authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants, despite the lack of any meaningful connection between California and the plaintiff’s claims. (First Advantage Background Services Corp. v. Superior Court of California)
- The Montana Supreme Court declines to reconsider its ruling that state-law personal-injury claims by railroad workers against their employers are not preempted by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. (BNSF Railway Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court)
- Sitting en banc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms dismissal of an anititrust class action against auto insurance companies, ruling that allegations that insurers engaged in “parallel conduct” are insufficient to plead a conspiracy to violate antitrust laws. (Quality Auto Painting Ctr. of Roselle, Inc. v. State Farm Indem. Co.)
- The U.S. Supreme Court rules that a copyright-infringement claim is not ripe for review until the Register of Copyrights has acted on the plaintiff’s copyright application. (Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com)