Prosecuted claims on behalf of The Prudential Insurance Company of America against Morgan Stanley for fraudulent misrepresentation and civil RICO involving the creation and sale of over $1 billion of RMBS. Access our insightful thought management, including articles, consumer alerts, and weblog posts… Ten non-public analysis universities, in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, relating to the use of race in the faculty admissions course of. Anti-Defamation League, in Windsor v. United States, a case seeking to overturn as unconstitutional Section three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Court dominated unconstitutional a key a half of DOMA that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married within the states in which they reside. Jim Obergefell and all fellow plaintiffs from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee in Tanco v. Haslam in four landmark instances regarding whether the basic right to marry could be denied to same-sex couples.

Supreme Court Docket

Although we wish to hear from you, we cannot symbolize you until we all know that doing so will not create a battle of curiosity. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any authorized matter until we authorize you to do so. To provoke a possible representation, please name certainly one of our attorneys or staff members. Mazurett v. Rochester City School Dist., 88 A.D.3d 1304 (4th Dept., 2011); successfully argued for affirming summary judgment in a Labor Law 240 case rejecting the recalcitrant worker protection.

California Supreme Court Docket Proclaims 7

Our appellate attorneys have also litigated landmark internet and privacy regulation instances. We represented The Dow Chemical Company in a Federal Circuit appeal of a jury verdict we obtained in Dow’s favor in a patent infringement litigation towards Nova Chemicals Corp. and Nova Chemicals Inc. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in Dow’s favor, and the Supreme Court denied Nova’s petition for a writ of certiorari. We gained a major federal preemption decision for Entergy within the Second Circuit, which held that the Atomic Energy Act barred Vermont’s effort to forestall continued operation of the Vermont Yankee plant for reasons of nuclear security. After prevailing in a bench trial by demonstrating that state lawmakers had acted with a objective to control nuclear security , we efficiently defended that victory on Vermont’s attraction to the Second Circuit, securing a unanimous affirmance. The determination adopted our arguments in explaining that the plaintiff did not state claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary responsibility, trade-secret misappropriation, unjust enrichment and unfair competitors.

Leave a Reply