Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
91 results for '* industry:"Federal Government"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-10-09
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry: Construction | Federal Government | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge McKee
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Lisa A. Mathewson, Philadelphia, PA for appellants.
for defendant: Paul G. Shapiro, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA; David E. Troyer, Office of United States Attorney, Philadelphia, PA for appellee.
Case Number: 19-3679
District court erred in setting the loss calculation at defendants' total profits where defendants lawfully performed work on the public construction project, with the DOT/PennDOT merely expecting defendants to obtain certain construction materials from a qualifying supplier.
Publication Date: 2023-09-25
Practice Area: Insurance Litigation
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Insurance
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Seitz
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Thomas E. Hanson, Jr., William J. Burton, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lilit Asadourian, Alice Kyureghian, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Aaron D. Lindstrom, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Grand Rapids, MI, for plaintiff below, appellee and cross-appellant.
for defendant: John L. Reed, DLA Piper LLP (US), Wilmington, DE; David Newmann, Courtney Devon Taylor, Victoria A. Joseph, Brittany Armour, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Robert J. Katzenstein, Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE for defendant below, appellant and cross-appellee.
Case Number: 360, 2022
Ruling that appellee's alleged violation of the False Claims Act arose out of false certifications that the loans it endorsed were eligible for government insurance, not the professional services it provided to borrowers through mortgage banking, mortgage underwriting, and loan servicing; the court concluded that the FCA charges and eventual settlement did not fall within the professional services exclusion in appellant's management liability policy.
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Environmental Law
Industry: Energy | Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Andrew C. Simpson, Andrew C. Simpson Law Offices, Christiansted, VI for petitioner.
for defendant: Todd S. Kim, Heather E. Gange, United States Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC for respondent.
Case Number: 23-1094
EPA's "reactivation" policy deeming a shut-down facility as "new" upon resumption of operations improperly extended scope of Prevention of Significant Deterioration program under the Clean Air Act, which expressly applied only to new and modified facilities.
Publication Date: 2023-08-14
Practice Area: Tax
Industry: Federal Government | Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Jordan
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Clint Carpenter, Arthur T. Catterall, United States Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC; Emily J. Giometti, Cincinnati, OH; Lisa M. Rodriguez, Office of District Council, Internal Revenue Service, Newark, NJ; Mary H. Weber, Internal Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel, Cincinnati, OH for appellant.
for defendant: Gregory G. Garre, Eric Konopka, Latham & Watkins, Washington, DC; Bryan M. Killian, William F. Nelson, James G. Steele, III, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Washington, DC for appellee.
Case Number: 22-1193
Legal expenses incurred by generic drug manufacturers to defend against patent infringement lawsuits were tax-deductible where they were ordinary and necessary business expenses as patent litigation was separate from the FDA approval process for ANDAs.
Publication Date: 2023-08-07
Practice Area: Mergers and Acquisitions
Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Porter
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jonathan S. Kanter, Doha Mekki, Maggie Goodlander, David B. Lawrence, Daniel E. Haar, Nikolai G. Levin, Peter M. Bozzo, Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Washington, DC for plaintiff-appellant.
for defendant: Melissa Arbus Sherry, Amanda P. Reeves, Lindsey S. Champlin, David L. Johnson, Charles S. Dameron, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Lawrence E. Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Christopher S. Yates, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Timothy G. Cameron, Peter T. Barbur, David R. Marriott, Daniel K. Zach, Michael K. Zaken, Lindsey J. Timlin, Hannah L. Dwyer, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY; Amanda L. Wait, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Daniel K. Hogan, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE for defendant-appellees.
Case Number: 22-2806
Rather than employ the hypothetical monopolist test analysis for determining product market under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's analysis using the actual market for refined sugar as the product market definition.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: Michael R. Griffinger, Paul F. Cullum III
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2023-07-10
Practice Area: Civil Rights
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge Krause
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David Rudovsky, Jonathan H. Feinberg, Susan M. Lin Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Patrick Toomey, Ashley Gorski, Sarah Taitz, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY; Jonathan Hafetz, Seton Hall Law School, Newark, NJ for appellants.
for defendant: Leif Overvold, Brian M. Boynton, H. Thomas Byron III, Sharon Swingle, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for appellees.
Case Number: 21-2798
"Clearly established" threshold inapplicable to discretionary function exception analysis under FTCA because the government lacked discretion to violate constitutional rights.
Publication Date: 2023-07-03
Practice Area: Criminal Law
Industry:
Court: Delaware Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Valihura
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Patrick J. Collins, Collins & Price, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
for defendant: Brian Arban, Delaware Department of Justice, Wilmington, DE for appellee.
Case Number: 218, 2022
Errors in microscopic hair comparison forensic testimony did not compel postconviction relief where the errors did not exculpate defendant and the state presented other substantial evidence of defendant's guilt.
Publication Date: 2023-07-03
Practice Area: Consumer Protection
Industry: Federal Government | Health Care
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Peter Bradford deLeeuw, deLeeuw Law LLC, Wilmington, DE; Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Jason Rathod, Tyler J. Bean, Migliaccio & Rathod, LLP, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Aimee M. Czachorowski, Cheneise Wright, Francis G.X. Pileggi, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; Danielle E. Stierna, Jon P. Kardassakis, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant.
Case Number: 22-317-RGA
Data breach victim had Article III standing by alleging incidents of misuse of her personal identifiable information and alleging that her PII accessed in the data breach was available to cybercriminals.
Publication Date: 2023-06-20
Practice Area: Administrative Law
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stephen A. Hampton, Grady & Hampton, Dover, DE; David F. Chermol, Chermol & Fishman, LLC, Philadelphia, PA for plaintiff.
for defendant: David C. Weiss, United States Attorney, Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, Evelyn Rose Marie Protano, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD for defendant.
Case Number: 22-86 (MN) (JLH)
Sufficient evidence supported ALJ's determination that plaintiff's combination of medical conditions did not impair him from performing light work that existed in substantial numbers in the national economy, such that plaintiff had residual functional capacity and was not disabled for purposes of SSI.
Publication Date: 2023-06-13
Practice Area: Bankruptcy
Industry: Financial Services and Banking | E-Commerce | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Ramona D. Elliot, P. Matthew Sutko, Frederick Gaston Hall, Sumi K. Sakata, Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Trustees, Washington, DC; Andrew R. Vara, Joseph J. McMahon, Jr., Benjamin A. Hackman, Juliet M. Sarkessian, Department of Justice, Office of the United States Trustee, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
for defendant: Adam G. Landis, Kimberly A. Brown, Matthew R. Pierce, Landis Rath & Cobb LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew G. Dietderich, James L. Bromley, Brian D. Glueckstein, Alexa J. Kranzley, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for appellees.
Case Number: 22-11068 (JTD)
District court was required to certify appeal of bankruptcy court order directly to the court of appeals where the order involved a purely question of law for which there was no controlling decision from the circuit court or Supreme Court.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read