Two logos side by side with Critical Legal Content in a red square on the left and HB Litigation in blue on the right

Supreme Court to Reconsider Separate Sovereignties

April 6th, 2025|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, Journal, Law Firm Operations, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

The Supreme Court’s decision to review Barrett v. United States signals a potential shift in how the long-standing “separate sovereignties” exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause is applied. This article by guest contributor Bret Thurman offers a deep dive into the historical, constitutional, and practical complexities of double jeopardy, from its roots in ancient Greece to modern-day interpretations. It explores how exceptions—like implied acquittals, mistrials, and fraud—have shaped the doctrine, and raises questions about whether dual prosecutions still make sense in today’s legal landscape.

Read More

Appellate Lawyers at Trial: Don’t Wait Until Your Ox is in the Ditch with Jeff Doss

February 16th, 2025|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, ELP, Law Firm Operations|Tags: , , , , |

In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, you will discover how appellate counsel can strengthen trial strategy and improve post-verdict outcomes in high-stakes cases. Our guest, Jeffrey P. Doss, a partner in the White-Collar Criminal Defense & Corporate Investigations practice group at Lightfoot, Franklin & White LLC, explores their critical role in error preservation, evidentiary challenges, and navigating appeals. Don't miss this episode!

Read More

The Corporate Transparency Act: A New Effort to Fight Money Laundering with Lori Smith

February 29th, 2024|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, ELP, News|Tags: , , , , |

In this episode, we discuss the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) with Lori Smith of Stradley Ronon, including the key facets of the Act's requirements, potential penalties, and chances for litigation. As Lori notes, "the U.S. is one of the few countries in the world where you can form entities, and nobody can tell who owns them". The CTA aims to prevent this from being the case. Listen and learn more!

Read More

FTC v. Amazon: Market Definitions and Section 5 of the FTC Act

December 21st, 2023|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Journal, Mass Torts, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

Traditional antitrust economics face significant challenges grappling with the relatively new digital economy. The author, Jonathan Rubin examines these and other issues raised in the case of FTC v. Amazon, which he anticipates will be a crucial test for antitrust and the FTC Act.

Read More

Natural Gas Bans and Bans on Bans

September 25th, 2023|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, ELP, Environmental Torts|Tags: , , , , |

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently struck down Berkeley, California's ban on natural gas infrastructure in new buildings as a violation of federal law. As we will continue to see more such bans, our guest shares insights on how similar cases may be treated -- and much more.

Read More

The IRS and Rules About Rules

June 24th, 2023|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Corporate Compliance, ELP|Tags: , , , |

The Administrative Procedures Act outlines the rules of rule making for federal agencies. Lately it has become a focal point in tax litigation, due in large part to the IRS’s record of refusing to comply with the law's notice-and-comment mandate. Listen to learn more about recent trends in tax litigation. Get an article, too.

Read More

Under Pressure: Courts and Lawyers Trying to Deal With It with Diana Manning

January 6th, 2023|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, News|Tags: , , , , |

The pressure on trial lawyers, judges, plaintiffs, defendants, and court systems is only increasing. The backlog of cases in New Jersey, for example, nearly quadrupled between February 2020 and 2021, the first year of the pandemic, according to NJ Spotlight News (NJSN). The state is also facing a historic shortage of jurists, NJSN reported, “leading to overworked judges, huge case backlogs and nearly 7,000 defendants in jail without bail, some 500 of them for more than two years despite a law that essentially requires a trial within two years for anyone detained." As reported by NJSN, one court official told the state Assembly Budget Committee about the impact of the pandemic on the court system: “Buildings were closed to most in-person trials for more than a year, although other proceedings continued virtually. The business closures and high unemployment led to a housing crisis that resulted in more than 46,000 pending cases that involve landlord-tenant issues . . . . But with all courts open and staff back to work in person, it is impossible to eliminate the backlog of cases with so many open judge seats.” The problem is attributed to the state Senate, where the process is mired, even though the governor is making appointments. According to the National Counsel for State Courts, backlogs at one third of [...]

Read More

Episode Three: Karla Gilbride Tells Her Story Behind the Unanimous Pro-Employee Win at the Supreme Court

June 14th, 2022|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, Employment, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts, News|Tags: , , , , |

DietaFit: Lose weight and stay fit - Page 6 | Diet, Fitness and Wellbeing | Page 6 dianabol pills gina fitness nude hentai clips Karla Gilbride Tells Her Story Behind the Unanimous Pro-Employee Win at the Supreme Court The Federal Arbitration Act is clear, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “[C]ourts are not to create arbitration-specific procedural rules …. Or put conversely, it is a bar on using custom-made rules, to tilt the playing field in favor of (or against) arbitration.” With the support of all eight of her colleagues, Justice Kagan’s opinion in Morgan v. Sundance  put an end to the long-running tilt of justice toward employers in the form of  judge-made rules that favor arbitration. This important holding clears the way for more workers, consumers, and other individuals harmed by corporate misconduct to pursue their rights in open court. Karla Gilbride, Senior Attorney at Public Justice, argued the case to the high court on behalf of the plaintiff, Robyn Morgan, an hourly employee at a Taco Bell franchise owned by Sundance, Inc.  It was not only Gilbride’s first Supreme Court argument, but she was the first blind attorney to do so in the court’s history. Listen to Public Justice’s Ellen Noble — who assisted in the case — as she interviews Gilbride about her remarkable experience. This is a must [...]

Read More

James Beck on the Drug & Device Law Blog: Something Both Sides Should Agree On (re Class Actions)

September 21st, 2020|Categories: Class Actions, Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, News|Tags: , , , , |

Senior Life Sciences Policy Analyst Reed Smith LLP Drug & Device Law Blog: Something Both Sides Should Agree On (re Class Actions) We’ll be very clear – as we have before:  We don’t like most class actions.  Indeed, if given our druthers, we would abolish Rule 23, as it applies to class actions for damages, altogether.  But that’s not in the offing anytime soon.  Today, we offer a class action decision that we think both sides, us on the defense and those on the plaintiffs side, can agree on, excluding only those responsible for the problem. In Pearson v. Target Corp., 968 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2020), the court came up with one possible solution to the class action “objector problem.” What’s that? Well, once a class action settles (as most do), all too often “objectors” come out of the woodwork.  While these objectors purport to assert the interests of the class, usually, all they want is money to make them go away.  Or, as described in Pearson: We address here a recurring problem in class-action litigation known colloquially as “objector blackmail.”  The scenario is familiar to class-action litigators on both offense and defense.  A plaintiff class and a defendant submit a proposed settlement for approval by the district court.  A few class members object to the settlement but [...]

Read More

Washington AG Sues Juul, Minnesota Judge Tosses RJR’s Suit to Overturn City’s Flavored Tobacco Ban, Verus Reports

September 14th, 2020|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts, News|Tags: , , , , |

Manager of Research Services Verus LLC klavin@verusllc.com 609-466-0427 Photo by Rubén Bagüés on Unsplash Litigation Update: Vaping and Flavored Tobacco Products Lawsuits The Washington state attorney general has filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court against Juul Inc., alleging that the company knowingly targeted minors in its marketing campaign on social media in an effort to push its products on young consumers. In the suit, Attorney Bob Ferguson claimed that in using young models, brightly colored ads and candy-flavored vaping juice, Juul violated Washington state’s consumer protection laws and failed to meet state tobacco product licensing regulations which would make the sales of the company’s e-cigarettes unlawful between August 2016 and April 2018 .... In another tobacco-related case, U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz tossed out R.J. Reynolds’ lawsuit against Edina, MN over the city’s ban on flavored tobacco products.  The company had claimed that Edina had overstepped its authority with a ban that was aimed at curbing vaping by younger consumers. In his ruling, Judge Schiltz wrote that the ban fell under a provision of the federal tobacco laws granting local governments the authority to regulate the sale of certain products .... Read more at VerusLLC.com.

Read More

NJ Judge Overstepped in Striking Talc Plaintiff Experts, Verus Reports

August 21st, 2020|Categories: Class Actions, HB Tort Notes, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , , |

Manager of Research Services Verus LLC klavin@verusllc.com 609-466-0427 Judge Abused Discretion in Striking Expert Evidence, NJ Appellate Court Finds Reverses 2016 Summary Judgment in Ovarian Cancer Cases On August 5, a three judge panel from the New Jersey state appeals court reversed a 2016 summary judgment granted in favor of defendants, talc manufacturer Johnson & Johnson and talc miner Imerys Talc America in cases brought by two women who allege J&J’s talc products caused their ovarian cancer. In its opinion, the panel ruled that Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Nelson C. Johnson abused his discretion by serving as the fact finder in deciding the credibility of the plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions instead of merely assessing whether the doctors’ opinions were based on sound scientific methodology. The trial judge acknowledged that the experts, Dr. Graham Colditz and Dr. Daniel Cramer, were qualified but opined that their scientific studies and evidence were narrow and shallow, showing a preference for cohort studies and their larger sample sizes over the case studies relied on by the experts.  In overturning the ruling by the trial court and discussing the studies cited by Colditz and Cramer, the appeals court stated that those studies satisfied the criteria outlined in the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence and also noted that size and [...]

Read More
Go to Top