Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  9th Circ. Nazi Art Theft Ruling Is Bad For Repatriation Cases

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, holding that a Spanish museum doesn't have to return a Nazi-stolen painting to the original Jewish owners, spells trouble for future heirloom repatriation cases, which hinge on similar archaic laws, say Andrea Perez and Josh Sherman at Carrington Coleman.

• Business Litigators Have A Source Of Untapped Fulfillment

  

  As increasing numbers of attorneys struggle with stress and mental health issues, business litigators can find protection against burnout by remembering their important role in society — because fulfillment in one’s work isn’t just reserved for public interest lawyers, say Bennett Rawicki and Peter Bigelow at Hilgers Graben.

• Series

  Skiing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  A lifetime of skiing has helped me develop important professional skills, and taught me that embracing challenges with a spirit of adventure can allow lawyers to push boundaries, expand their capabilities and ultimately excel in their careers, says Andrea Przybysz at Tucker Ellis.

• Opinion

  High Court Should Endorse Insurer Standing In Bankruptcy

  

  In Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum, the U.S. Supreme Court will examine bankruptcy standing doctrine as applied to insurers in mass tort cases, and should use the opportunity to eliminate spurious standing roadblocks to resolving insurer objections on their merits, says Frank Perch at White and Williams.

• High Court Social Media Speech Ruling Could Implicate AI

  

  In Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether certain state laws can restrict content moderation by social media platforms, but the eventual decision could also provide insight into whether the first amendment protects artificial intelligence speech, say Joseph Meadows and Quyen Dang at GRSM50.

• Justices' Trump Ballot Ruling: Purposivism In Textualist Garb

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s Trump v. Anderson decision earlier this week, allowing former President Donald Trump to remain on state primary ballots, alleviates uncertainty and minimizes the potential for abuse in future cases, but is difficult to square with the court’s own account of its textualist interpretive methods, says Will Havemann at Hogan Lovells.

• Disney Copyright Expiration Spurs Trademark Questions

  

  While the recent expiration of Disney’s Steamboat Willie copyright is not likely to have an immediate impact, it could provide clarity on the extent to which trademark rights in character names and appearance affect what others can do with characters from works whose copyright has expired, says Bryan Wheelock at Harness IP.

• Texas Insurance Ruling Could Restore Finality To Appraisal

  

  The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. Safeco, determining that full payment of an appraisal award precludes recovery of attorney fees, indicates a potential return to an era in which timely payment undoubtedly disposes of all possible policyholder claims, says Karl Schulz at Cozen O'Connor.

• Think Like A Lawyer: Forget Everything You Know About IRAC

  

  The mode of legal reasoning most students learn in law school, often called “Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion,” or IRAC, erroneously frames analysis as a separate, discrete step, resulting in disorganized briefs and untold obfuscation — but the fix is pretty simple, says Luke Andrews at Poole Huffman.

• Zero-Point Offender Eligibility May Hinge On Meaning Of 'And'

  

  Some white collar defendants’ eligibility for the new zero-point offender sentencing adjustment comes down to whether the word “and” really means “and” — a question the U.S. Supreme Court is set to resolve in its upcoming Pulsifer v. U.S. decision, which could affect thousands of incarcerated people, say Brandon McCarthy and Nikita Yogeshwarun at Katten.

• Valeant Ruling May Pave Way For Patent-Based FCA Suits

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Silbersher v. Valeant marks a significant development in False Claims Act jurisprudence, opens new avenues for litigation and potentially raises the stakes for patent applicants who intend to do business with the government, say Joshua Robbins and Rick Taché at Buchalter.

• A Former Bankruptcy Judge Talks 'Undue Hardship'

  

  Former U.S. bankruptcy judge Robert Gordon reflects on his journey from student borrower to judicial observer, highlighting the challenges faced by modern students burdened with student loan debt and advocating for reform in bankruptcy laws, particularly regarding the "undue hardship" element of discharge.

• Recent Rulings Add Dimension To Justices' Maui Decision

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund established new factual criteria for determining when the Clean Water Act applies to groundwater — and recent decisions from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have clarified how litigants can make use of the Maui standard, says Steven Hoch at Clark Hill.

• Strategies For Single-Member Special Litigation Committees

  

  The Delaware Supreme Court's recent order in the Baker Hughes derivative litigation allowing testimony from a single-member special litigation committee highlights the fact that, while single-member SLCs are subject to heightened scrutiny, they can also provide unique opportunities, says Josh Bloom at MoloLamken.

• 10th Circ. Ruling Means More Okla. Oilfield Pollution Litigation

  

  By applying Oklahoma's statutory definitions of pollution to a private landowner's claim for negligence for the first time, the Tenth Circuit's recent decision in Lazy S Ranch v. Valero will likely make it harder to obtain summary judgment in oilfield contamination cases, and will lead to more litigation, say attorneys at GableGotwals.