• New York County, Surrogate's Court: May 28, 2024

    Publication Date: 2024-05-28
    Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
    Industry:
    Court: Surrogate, New York County
    Judge: Surrogate Hillary Gingold and Rita Mella
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: DOCKET

    Decision and Orders & Decree and Orders signed between:May 20-23, 2024

  • U.S. v. Kaganovich

    Publication Date: 2024-05-28
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, U.S. - EDNY
    Judge: District Judge Margo K. Brodie
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 12 CR 648

    Defendant Is Entitled to Reduction in Base Offense Level But Not Reduction in Sentence

  • May 27, 2024 | Law.com

    Is There a Maximum Number in This Salary Race?

    What we need is a market peak, a Usain Bolt of the legal world that sets a junior lawyer pay rate so far ahead that no one can beat it, but AI might make the problem worse, writes the Global Lawyer.

    6 minute read

  • May 27, 2024 | Daily Report Online

    King & Spalding, Alston Still the Largest Georgia Law Firms, but Competitors Growing Quickly in Atlanta

    Holland & Knight, Lewis Brisbois and Baker Hostetler are among the big firms with rapid growth in the city.

    7 minute read

  • In re Richardson Motorsports, Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2024-05-27
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals | Discovery | Personal Injury
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Busby
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-1167

    Relator Richardson Motorsports was sued by minor E.B., the real party in interest, for damages for her alleged mental anguish after she witnessed her eight-year-old brother's death in an ATV accident when the ATV's steering mechanism allegedly failed. Relator sold the ATV to E.B.'s father in 2013.

  • DanielDean.com, LLC v. Lapole

    Publication Date: 2024-05-27
    Practice Area: Civil Procedure | Contracts | Litigation
    Industry:
    Court: Court of Appeals
    Judge: Justice Horton
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 09-22-00323-CV

    Appellant sued appellee for breach of contract, quantum meruit and a violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act, seeking to recover damages for unpaid work.

  • Schmitt v. The State

    Publication Date: 2024-05-27
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Georgia Supreme Court
    Judge: Presiding Justice Peterson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John Aspinwall Garland, Donald Franklin Samuel, Kristen Wright Novay, (Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.), Atlanta, Matthew Kyle Winchester, (Law Offices of Matthew K. Winchester), Atlanta,for appellant.
    for defendant: Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Clint Christopher Malcolm, Meghan Hobbs Hill, Mary Catherine Norman, Elizabeth Haase Brock, Christopher M. Carr, (Department of Law), Atlanta, Fani T. Willis, Kevin Christopher Armstrong, Mario Kladis, (Fulton County District Attorney’s Office), Atlanta, for appellee.

    Case Number: S24A0036

    Court reverses convictions for malice murder and other crimes due to error in failing to instruct the jury on accident as a defense

  • United States v. Pritchett

    Publication Date: 2024-05-27
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Roth
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Benjamin L. Wallace, Jesse S. Wenger, Office of United States Attorney, Wilmington, DE for appellant.
    for defendant: David Pugh, Mary K. Healy, Office of Federal Public Defender, Wilmington, DE for appellee.

    Case Number: 23-2005

    District court correctly suppressed evidence where defendant's actions were not sufficiently furtive or suspicious to justify a Terry stop.

  • FlexWage Solutions LLC v. Ceridian HCM Holding Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-05-27
    Practice Area: Contracts
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Davis
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David A. Jenkins, Julie M. O’Dell, Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jonathan K. Waldrop, Marcus Barber, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Carolina Diaz-Martinez, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, New York, NY for plaintiff.
    for defendant: John A. Sensing, P. Andrew Smith, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; David J. Lender, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: N23C-04-086 EMD CCLD

    Misappropriation claims were untimely where announcement of competing program was sufficient to put plaintiff on notice of potential misappropriation.

  • Sage Chem., Inc. v. Supernus Pharm., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2024-05-27
    Practice Area: Antitrust
    Industry: Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Burke
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominick T. Gattuso, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; W. Gordon Dobie, Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL; Susannah P. Torpey, Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY; Robert A. Julian, Baker & Hostetler LLP, San Francisco, CA for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Gary W. Lipkin, Michelle C. Streifthau-Livizos, Saul Ewing LLP, Wilmington, DE; Charles O. Monk, II, Jordan D. Rosenfeld, Saul Ewing LLP, Baltimore, MD; Jeffrey S. Robbins, Saul Ewing LLP, Boston, MA; Michael F. Brockmeyer, David S. Shotlander, Haug Partners LLP, Washington, D.C.; Ralph E. Labaton, Aakruti G. Vakharia, Haug Partners LLP, New York, NY; Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Erick J. Stock, Shireen Barday, Joshua Obear, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Beth Moskow-Schnoll, Tyler B. Burns, Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Adam K. Levin, Benjamin Holt, Ilana Kattan, Kaitlyn Golden, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C. for defendants.

    Case Number: 22-1302-CJB

    Plaintiffs adequately pled antitrust claims by alleging various anticompetitive acts by defendants designed to prevent or delay market entry of competing products, which resulted in the failure of plaintiffs' product launch.