Mass. Ruling Raises Questions About Whistleblower Status

In Galvin v. Roxbury Community College, Massachusetts' top appellate court held that an individual was protected from retaliation as a whistleblower, even though he engaged in illegal activity, raising questions about whether whistleblowers who commit illegal acts are protected and whether trusted employees are doing their job or whistleblowing, say attorneys at Littler.

Series

Judges On AI: Practical Use Cases In Chambers

U.S. Magistrate Judge Allison Goddard in the Southern District of California discusses how she uses generative artificial intelligence tools in chambers to make work more efficient and effective — from editing jury instructions for clarity to summarizing key documents.

Notable Q4 Updates In Insurance Class Actions

Last quarter featured a novel class action theory about car rental reimbursement coverage, another win for insurers in total loss valuations, a potentially broad-reaching Idaho Supreme Court ruling about illusory underinsured motorist coverage, and homeowners blaming rising premiums on the fossil fuel industry, says Kevin Zimmerman at BakerHostetler.

Opinion

Criminalizing Officials' Speech Erodes Trust In Justice System

Federal prosecutors reportedly investigating whether Minnesota officials’ public statements illegally impeded immigration enforcement is a dangerous overextension of obstruction law that would criminalize dissent and sow public distrust in law enforcement, say Marc Levin and Khalil Cumberbatch at the Council on Criminal Justice.

Series

Trail Running Makes Me A Better Lawyer

Navigating the muddy, root-filled path of trail marathons and ultramarathons provides fertile training ground for my high-stakes fractional general counsel work, teaching me to slow down my mind when the terrain shifts, sharpen my focus and trust my training, says Eric Proos at Next Era Legal.

Reflections From High Court Oral Args Over Fed Gov. Removal

In the oral arguments last month for Trump v. Cook, which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the circumstances under which the president can remove a Federal Reserve Board governor, the justices appeared skeptical about ruling on the substantive issues in view of the limited record and analysis, say attorneys at Ballard Spahr.

Opinion

Justices' Monsanto Decision May Fix A Preemption Mistake

In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the U.S. Supreme Court will address whether federal law preempts states' label-based failure-to-warn claims when federal regulators have not required a warning — and its decision could correct a long-standing misinterpretation of a prior high court ruling, thus ending myriad meritless state law personal injury claims, says Lawrence Ebner at Capital Appellate.

Tips From Del. Decision Nixing Major Earnout Damages Award

The Delaware Supreme Court recently vacated in part the largest earnout-related damages award in Delaware history, making clear that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be used to rescue parties from drafting choices where the relevant regulatory risk was foreseeable at signing, say attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell.

What's At Stake In Possible Circuit Split On Medicaid Rule

A recent Eleventh Circuit decision, reviving Florida's lawsuit against a federal rule that reduces Medicaid funding based on agreements between hospitals, sets up a potential circuit split with the Fifth Circuit, with important ramifications for states looking to private administrators to run provider tax programs, say Liz Goodman, Karuna Seshasai and Rebecca Pitt at FTI Consulting.

Takeaways From 8th Circ. Ruling On Worker's 'BLM' Display

The Eighth Circuit's recent decision in Home Depot v. National Labor Relations Board, finding that Home Depot legally prohibited an employee from displaying Black Lives Matter messaging on his uniform, reaffirms employers' right to restrict politically sensitive material, but should not be read as a blank check, say attorneys at Hunton.

NC Ruling Shows Mallory's Evolving Effects For Policyholders

A recent North Carolina decision, PDII v. Sky Aircraft, demonstrates how the U.S. Supreme Court's consequential jurisdiction decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern may permit suits against insurers anywhere they do business so long as the forum state has a business registration statute that requires submitting to in-state lawsuits, says Christopher Popecki at Pillsbury.

Malpractice Claim Assignability Continues To Divide Courts

Recent decisions from courts across the country demonstrate how different jurisdictions balance competing policy interests in determining whether legal malpractice claims can be assigned, providing a framework to identify when and how to challenge any attempted assignment, says Christopher Blazejewski at Sherin & Lodgen.

Tips For Financial Advisers Facing TRO From Former Firm

The Eighth Circuit's recent decision in Choreo v. Lors, overturning a lower court's sweeping injunction after financial advisers moved to a new firm, gives advisers new strategies to fight restraining orders from their old firms, such as focusing on whether the alleged irreparable harm is calculable, say attorneys at Kutak Rock.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Closure Highlights Labor Law Stakes

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's recently announced closure, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied relief from an injunction mandating that the newspaper restore terms from its previous collective bargaining agreement, illustrates that prematurely declaring an impasse and implementing unilateral changes carries risk, says Sunshine Fellows at Freeman Mathis.

Unpacking Dormant Commerce Clause Cannabis Circuit Split

Federal courts have reached differing conclusions as to whether state-legal cannabis is subject to the dormant commerce clause, with four opinions across three circuit courts in the last year demonstrating the continued salience of the dormant commerce clause debate to the nation's cannabis industry, regulators and policymakers, say attorneys at Perkins Coie.