On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, No. 16-254. The Court held that the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (Hague...more
On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., No. 15-866, holding that artistic designs on cheerleading uniforms were eligible for copyright...more
On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, holding that a structured dismissal under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code must follow ordinary priority rules...more
On March 21, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc., No. 15-1251, holding that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA) prevents any person nominated for a...more
On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No. 14-981, holding that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits the University of Texas’ use of race-conscious...more
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided RJR Nabisco, Inc. et al. v. European Community et al., No. 15-138, holding that at least some of the substantive provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and...more
On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, holding that a Department of Labor formal regulation that reversed the Department’s longstanding informal position exempting service advisors...more
On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc. v. Lee, holding that, in an inter partes review, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) may give a patent claim its broadest reasonable...more
On June 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States et al. ex. rel. Escobar et al., No. 15-7, holding that omitting material statutory, regulatory, or contractual...more
On June 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. 15-375, holding that, in assessing whether a prevailing party in copyright litigation should recover its attorneys’ fees, the...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, No. 15-233, holding that Chapter 9 of the federal bankruptcy code preempts Puerto Rico’s...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., No. 14-1513, and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 14-1520, holding that a patent-infringement plaintiff can...more
On April 26, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Heffernan v. City of Paterson, No. 14-1280, holding government employees who are demoted because their employer believes they are engaging in constitutionally protected political...more
On April 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Bank Markazi v. Peterson, No. 14-770, holding that Congress did not unconstitutionally infringe on the role of the judiciary when it passed the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria...more
On April 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, No. 14-232, holding that a redistricting plan is not unconstitutional where the maximum population deviation between the...more
In a 5-4 vote, the United States Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) through the ultimate Supreme Court determination on the merits, assuming the inevitable writ of certiorari from the D.C....more
On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46, and two other consolidated cases, holding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acted unreasonably,...more
On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States decided King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, holding that tax credits authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are available to individuals who purchase...more
On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Elonis v. United States, No. 13-983, holding that to support a conviction under a federal statute that makes it a crime to communicate a threat, prosecutors must prove a mental...more
On June 1, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mellouli v. Lynch, holding that a legal permanent resident may not be deported for a state-law drug conviction unless that conviction necessarily involves a drug covered by the...more
On April 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar. The Court held that the First Amendment permits States to restrict judicial candidates’ speech by prohibiting them from personally soliciting...more
On April 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mach Mining, LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Court held that the EEOC’s compliance with its statutory obligation to attempt to informally conciliate claims...more
On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court decided North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 13-534. The Court held that the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners was not immune...more
On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Yates v. United States, No. 13-7451, holding that fish are not “tangible objects” within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. §1519, a federal law providing that a person who...more
On January 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that borrowers exercising their right to rescind a loan under the Truth in Lending Act must provide written notice to their lender within the three-year rescission period but...more
1/14/2015
/ Bank of America ,
Banks ,
Countrywide ,
Disclosure Requirements ,
Mortgage Lenders ,
Mortgages ,
Notice Requirements ,
Refinancing ,
Rescission ,
SCOTUS ,
Statute of Limitations ,
Truth in Lending Act (TILA) ,
Written Notice