Mealey Publications™
TOP STORIES
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A retiree’s widow, public policy group Manhattan Institute (the Institute) and several law professors are among the amici curiae that filed briefs on Feb. 19 urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) “was not a physical taking and plaintiffs did not prove it was a regulatory taking” and therefore the attempt by a certified class of retirees to get federal compensation for cuts made to their vested pension benefits failed.
NEW YORK — Calling a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in early February “not only legally incorrect but equitably devastating,” a financial services company insured’s liquidating trust filed a petition for rehearing of the panel’s holding that a professional liability insurance policy’s fee exclusion bars coverage for the insured’s liability in two underlying class actions alleging that certain mortgage loan fees were unlawful and that the insured was derivatively liable under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act.
NEW YORK — Resolving what it said was “a split between two district courts in our Circuit” and saying the “case presents a novel legal question in this and other Circuits,” the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 18 affirmed an interpretation of the phrase “unfunded vested benefits” in the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) that reduced withdrawal liability from $1.8 million to zero for an exit caused by employees’ decision to switch unions.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A litany of environmental advocacy groups and 18 youths from across the country filed petitions in the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 18 challenging a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency final action published in the Federal Register the same day that rescinded Obama-era greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution regulations for engines and vehicles.
ATLANTA — The Georgia Supreme Court upheld a murder conviction, rejecting arguments that the trial court erred in allowing an expert to testify about testing that was done to prove that the fatal gunshot was not self-inflicted.
NEW ORLEANS — The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 18 affirmed a lower federal court’s ruling that granted an insurer’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the insurer mishandled an insurance claim related to the conduct of the insured and its board members, further concluding that the lower court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion to remand.
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court awarded attorney fees to an Ohio man whose public records request seeking emails related to a dispute over a primary ballot were initially denied; however, the high court in a per curiam opinion determined that the requester failed to show that the $690 hourly rate for his two attorneys in the case where the high court ordered the release of two emails was justified.
SAN DIEGO — There is no evidence that San Diego concealed knowledge about employees’ potential exposure to asbestos from renovation work or that the employees faced conditions outside the normal employment relationship, a California appellate court said in an unpublished opinion affirming summary judgment in favor of San Diego and one of its officers on Feb. 17.
BOSTON — Pursuant to leave granted by a Massachusetts federal judge, physicians’ professional groups and others seeking to challenge changes made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in its vaccine recommendations and other agency actions on Feb. 17 filed a fourth amended complaint, adding to the agency actions challenged in previous complaints the recent reduction of the CDC’s recommended childhood vaccinations from 17 to 11 in alignment with the recommended vaccine schedule of Denmark.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Feb. 17 affirmed a Minnesota federal judge’s denial of defendant-appellants’ requests for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or for a new trial on damages; the panel emphasized that its role on appeal was to determine whether the jury had substantial evidence to support its findings, not to reweigh that evidence.
ATLANTA — The Georgia Supreme Court on Feb. 17 answered questions certified to it from federal court and held that a third party can be found to have procured a life insurance policy when viewing the “totality of the relevant circumstances” in a trust’s suit seeking to collect death benefits on a $6 million life insurance policy the insurer claims was a stranger-originated life insurance (STOLI) policy that was procured by a third party in violation of Georgia law.