The Journey of Litigation
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 504: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motions for New Trial (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 306: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 3 – The Civil Lawsuit)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 412: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Summary Judgment
What Litigants Need to Know about Summary Judgment
JONES DAY TALKS®: Tiffany v. Costco Raises Trademark Infringement, Counterfeiting Questions
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: Examining FDA’s Enforcement Authority Over Stem Cell Clinics and Compounders
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
A federal judge in Michigan last week rejected a contractor’s efforts to avoid a jury trial this fall in its dispute with the owner of the Ludington Pumped Storage Hydro plant. The case involves a project to overhaul the...more
On February 13, 2025, a New York intermediate appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment against energy companies that defaulted on their loan obligations. In 2020 and 2021, an engineering firm specializing in...more
Sewak v. Sutherland Energy Co. Ltd. is of interest for how the court defined terms commonly used in consulting contracts in the oil and gas industry, and how difficult it is to foresee all contingencies when negotiating a...more
Kouatli v. Endeavor Energy Resources L.P. offers valuable (and obvious) lessons on how NOT to perform a Master Service Agreement in the oil patch (or, per Billly Bob and friends, “The Patch”), to wit...more
The High Court in URE Energy v Notting Hill Genesis found that whether a party is aware of its termination right under a contract depends solely on the evidence and requires actual, not constructive, knowledge. However,...more
A United States District Court (W.D. New York) (“Court”) addressed in a July 14th decision and order (“Order”) an issue arising out of the operation of wind turbines. See Andre, et al. v. Invenergy LLC, 2022 WL 2759249. ...more
On March 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its decision in Fonzi v. Brown and Fonzi v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-901, discussing the level of due diligence required of a surface owner to provide notice to a...more
Since the enactment of the Jones Act, courts have wrestled to define "seaman" and who is entitled to remedies under the Jones Act. The Jones Act grants a "seaman" a negligence cause of action against his employer and only a...more
This briefing is intended to provide an update on two recent developments under the US sanctions regime. ..The first one is the introduction of US sanctions related to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, which threaten to...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Flaherty v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, No. 18-1759, 2019 WL 7046367, at *1 (1st Cir. Dec. 23, 2019), the First Circuit struck a terminated nuclear plant security officer’s...more
Dieckman v. Regency GP LP, C.A. No. 11130-CB (Del. Ch. Oct. 29, 2019). The Dieckman v. Regency GP LP matter has been in the Delaware courts for several years. ...more
On July 30, 2019, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal panel unanimously held that the federal Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) preempts two components of California's Renewable Market Adjusting Tariff (Re-MAT)...more
Judge Woodcock of the U.S. District Court in Portland, finding that the South Portland’s Clear Skies Ordinance (the Ordinance) was neither a “preempted pipeline facility safety standard or a discriminatory ordinance enacted...more
On September 6, 2018, the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas issued a decision in Theresa Jacobs, et al. v. Dye Oil, LLC, et al., C.P. Monroe No. 2017-189 (September 6, 2018), granting summary judgment for the operator of an...more
When does an excluded loss end and a covered “resulting loss” begin? This thorny question was the subject of a recent decision out of the Southern District of Texas, EMS USA, Inc. v. The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Co., No....more
Trespass by hydraulic fracturing is alive in Pennsylvania. In a case of first impression in the state, on April 2, the Superior Court held that hydraulic fracturing under the land of an adjoining property may create an...more
The Supreme Court of the State of New York (Appellate Division)(“Court”) in a December 22, 2017, Memorandum and Order (“Order”) addressed whether a lower court erred in failing to dismiss a third-party claimant’s...more
• A solar developer claimed that California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) orders promoting solar and wind generation under 3 megawatts (MW) prevented it from securing a contract from a utility under the Public Utility...more
On November 30, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in Eclipse Resources - Ohio, LLC v. Madzia, affirming the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to Eclipse Resources in all respects. ...more
The Supreme Court of the State of New York (Appellate Division) (“Court”) in a November 9th Memorandum and Order (“Order”) addressed whether field invoices provided to a customer for the performance of hydraulic fracturing...more
In the spirit of Halloween, Le Norman Operating v. Chalker Energy Partners III is about a scary statute: The Texas Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, the UETA....more
In an antitrust case where two competitors admittedly engaged in concerted action to block a third competitor’s access to a natural gas gathering system, a federal appeals court recently upheld summary judgment for the...more
The federal courts continued in 2016 to produce a stream of cases pertaining to money laundering. We focus on three below because they involve analysis of basic issues that frequently arise in money laundering litigation....more
Last week, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed – for the second time – a District Court decision granting summary judgment to DTE Energy in the United States’ case alleging that DTE Energy had violated EPA’s NSR...more
In 2006, the Fifth Circuit issued a landmark controversial opinion in Texaco Exploration & Production, Inc. v. AmClyde Engineered Products Co., 448 F.3d 760, 770 (5th Cir.) amended on reh’g, 453 F.3d 652 (5th Cir. 2006). The...more