Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In Lagos v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporate victims of criminal offenses cannot recover expenses incurred from internal investigations that the federal government has neither requested nor required under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996,
Features
<b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>The United States Supreme Court's October Term 2017 was a good year for criminal defendants in areas as varied as the Fourth Amendment, obstruction of justice, the death penalty, and criminal restitution. There was only one major criminal law decision this term — <i>Carpenter v. United States</i> — but there were several decisions that defense counsel would do well to study.
Features
The ruling restricting the collection of historical cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant aims to be narrow in scope, but legal experts argue it may have repercussions for years to come.
Features
In a 5-4 decision, with four justices dissenting, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's practice of instituting review on only a subset of an <i>inter partes</i> review (IPR) petitioner's validity challenges.
Features
<b><i>Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group</b></i><p>Is <i>inter partes</i> review of a patent grant compatible with Article III and the Seventh Amendment? That was the question presented in <i>Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group</i> and the U.S. Supreme Court answered in the affirmative.
Features
<b><i>U.S. Supreme Court Denial of Cert Leaves Statute Vague</i></b><p>This article analyzes the confusion faced by commodity futures traders in assessing whether their trading strategies constitute illegal spoofing and examines whether the CFTC and Seventh Circuit have provided sufficient guidance on the distinction between spoofing and legitimate trading activity.
Features
<b><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>In Part One, we discussed the public concern over unfairness in asset forfeiture and analyzed the Supreme Court case — <i>United States v. Bajakajian</i> — that looked to the Excessive Fines Clause to limit the government's authority to forfeit property. In Part Two, we consider possible reforms that would allow defendants to challenge forfeitures as disproportionate under a fairer and more appropriate analysis.
Features
The justices in <i>Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association</i> found the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act infringed on state sovereignty. The decision could transform sports and sports gambling from coast to coast.
Features
<b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>In <i>Honeycutt v. United States</i>, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a federal criminal forfeiture statute permits joint and several liability for criminal asset forfeiture judgments, thereby protecting defendants who were only marginally culpable for a larger offense.
Features
Ultimately, <i>Village at Lakeridge</i> is noteworthy for what the Supreme Court did not decide. In granting <i>certiorari</i>, the Supreme Court declined to address whether the lower courts' various “non-statutory insider” tests should be refined. As concurrences from Justices Sotomayor and Kennedy emphasized, though, that issue is ripe for increased scrutiny.