Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
260 results for '* industry:"Federal Government"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-09-18
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Dodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:22-cv-0304
Defendant moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's title VII action asserting discrimination and retaliation in his not being promoted and court found defendant presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason and plaintiff produced no evidence of pretext. Motion granted.
Publication Date: 2023-09-18
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Chagares
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1940
District court erred in granting summary judgment to government based on the lack of an expert report in appellant prisoner's pro se medical negligence action because the Federal Tort Claims Act did not incorporate Pa.R.Civ.P. 1042.3 and appellant did not otherwise have an adequate opportunity to seek an expert or conduct discovery due to his unique position as a pro se inmate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reversed.
Publication Date: 2023-09-04
Practice Area: Labor Law
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Kearney
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 23-294
Age/gender discrimination and retaliation complaints were dismissed where employee could not prove that employer's non-discriminatory selection of candidates with more recent experience was pretext for discrimination/retaliation. Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted.
Publication Date: 2023-08-28
Practice Area: Civil Rights
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Smith
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-3162
Prison inmate and fiance sufficiently pled Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim based on prison's alleged practice of denying inmate marriage requests by asserting they viewed marriage as having religious significance and an expression of their faith. Order of the district court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part.
Publication Date: 2023-08-21
Practice Area: Civil Rights
Industry: Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Rufe
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-4557
Defendant moved for summary judgment in plaintiff's religious discrimination and retaliation action over accommodation for his beard and court found plaintiff was granted an accommodation and failed to show a prima facie case of religious discrimination. Motion granted.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: T. BART GARY, JAKE CARROLL
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
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: Consumer Protection
Industry: Federal Government | Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Circuit Judge Chagares
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-1562
District court properly dismissed the portion of the indictment asserting defendants conspired to violate 21 U.S.C. §§331(d) and 355(a) in action over sourcing of an active ingredient for a drug from a facility not included in the Abbreviated New Drug Applications approvals and court found the drug at issue had the same composition and labeling as the drug for which an ANDA approval was effective and government could not rely on the premise that the two drugs were different and noted government's other argument had been rejected in We
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.
Publication Date: 2023-07-31
Practice Area: Education Law
Industry: Education | Federal Government
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
Judge: District Judge Colville
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2:22-cv-736
Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's motion for declaratory relief and a court order declaring her correct birth date on her U.S. passport so she could comply with regulations pertaining to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid and court dismissed her complaint without prejudice because court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Motion granted.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read