Expert Analysis

• Fed. Circ. In May: Being Precise About 'About'

  

  The Federal Circuit's decision in Enviro Tech v. Safe Foods last month illustrates the danger in attempting to expand claim scope with words of approximation, potentially causing claims to be invalid for lack of definiteness, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• Justices' FCC Fine Ruling May Weaken Agency Leverage

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T upheld the commission's forfeiture framework as consistent with Jarkesy, but it is also likely to reduce the effectiveness of the commission’s forfeiture proceedings as a collection and deterrence tool, say attorneys at Venable.

• Ill. Law Firm MSO Bill Clashes With Court Power, Ethics Rules

  

  An Illinois bill prohibiting law firms from certain business arrangements with management service organizations, sent to the governor for signature last week, encroaches upon the courts' constitutional powers and goes beyond the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct in regulating investment in law-related services, says Matthew O’Hara at Smith Gambrell.

• Google Antitrust Case Puts Spotlight On De Facto Exclusivity

  

  Mozilla's recent amicus filing in U.S. v. Google arguing that its agreement to make Google the default search engine did not amount to de facto exclusivity highlights the growing debate over traditional indicators of exclusivity, with implications for any business that uses rebates, preferred contracts or volume incentives, says Chris Gowen at WilmU Farnan School of Law.

• Justices' Montgomery Ruling Doesn't Expand Shipper Liability

  

  Whether negligent hiring liability claims against shippers will increase after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last month in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II is anyone's guess, but the ruling itself will have no impact on shippers' actual liability in personal injury claims relating to trucking accidents, says Ronald Leibman at McCarter & English.

• GHG Rescission Undermines State Climate Suit Preemption

  

  As the U.S. Supreme Court considers the fate of state climate litigation in Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder County, it must confront the fact that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rescission of its greenhouse gas endangerment finding has also removed the foundation for federal preemption of state climate suits, says attorney Gregg Goldfarb.

• 3rd Circ. Decision Sheds Light On BIPA Bank Exemption

  

  The Third Circuit's recent decision in McGoveran v. Amazon illuminates how courts are extending the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act's financial institution carveout beyond banks and insurers to technology vendors and other businesses handling biometric data, a defendant-friendly shift that still casts uncertainty around BIPA's enforcement, say attorneys at Dorsey & Whitney.

• Opinion

  State Courts Must Be Gatekeepers Of Expert Testimony

  

  Based on my experience in the state judiciary, emulating federal courts' role as gatekeepers of expert witness testimony would help state court judges maintain the appearance of impartiality and assist juries, thus enhancing the overall confidence people have in their justice system, says Lorie Gildea at Greenberg Traurig.

• Series

  Moshing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Entering a mosh pit is much like entering the practice of law — it is difficult, you have to know both the written and unwritten rules, and conduct yourself according to the expectations of each community, says Christopher Deubert at Constangy Brooks.

• High Court Ruling Casts Doubt On Status-Based Gun Bans

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in U.S. v. Hemani demonstrates that the justices are increasingly skeptical of broad theories of categorical disarmament and clarifies that dangerousness cannot simply be presumed from one's status or membership in a statutory category, such as illegal drug use, says Lee Francis at Widener Law.

• Why Highly Specialized Experts May Risk Exclusion At Trial

  

  Expert witnesses with highly specific areas of focus may be vulnerable to exclusion in court, making it important for attorneys to check how potential witnesses' qualifications can be bolstered by their publications and other professional activities, say Evan Weisberg and Christopher Cunio at Hunton, and Kevin Cahill at FTI Consulting.

• Steps For Employers After 7th Circ. BIPA Retroactivity Ruling

  

  The Seventh Circuit's recent ruling in Clay v. Union Pacific sharply limits per-scan statutory damages theories in pending Biometric Information Privacy Act cases by retroactively applying a 2024 amendment, but employers should not mistake the holding for a broad safe harbor, say attorneys at Thompson Coburn.

• How NEPA Review Has Changed Since Seven County

  

  A year after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County instituted major changes to judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act, courts are effectively applying the decision, but where things go from here may be up to agencies and project proponents, say attorneys at Venable.

• A Midyear Look At Antiterrorism Act Jurisprudence And Policy

  

  Plaintiffs have filed comparably fewer new actions under the Antiterrorism Act this year, though a handful of key decisions further defined the statute’s aiding-and-abetting standard and highlighted continuing risks for financial services companies, say attorneys at Skadden.

• Justices' ICA Ruling Provides Certainty For Regulated Funds

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in FS Credit v. Saba that a contract-rescission provision of the Investment Company Act does not provide investors with a private right of action is a victory for the regulated fund industry, emphasizing that where Congress intended to create private remedies, it did so expressly, say attorneys at Simpson Thacher.