• Phillips v. Jackson, Judge et al.

    Publication Date: 2022-08-31
    Practice Area: Criminal Appeals
    Industry:
    Court: Georgia Supreme Court
    Judge: Presiding Justice Peterson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Amanda K Johns, (City of Atlanta Public Defender’s Office), Atlanta, for appellant.
    for defendant: Patricia B. Attaway Burton, Paula Khristian Smith, Michael Christopher Wynter, Hermise Pierre, Christopher M. Carr, (Department of Law), Atlanta, Fani T. Willis, Lyndsey Hurst Rudder, Kevin Christopher Armstrong, (Fulton County District Attorney’s Office), Atlanta, for appellee.

    Case Number: S22A0503

    Court affirms denial of habeus petition to municipal court's decision because petitioner had another adequate remedy at law.

  • August 30, 2022 | Daily Business Review

    Global Bond Index Tumbles on Fed Chair Powell Pushback

    The hopes of a dovish shift that drove a rebound through June and July have evaporated since Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell committed to higher rates for as long as it takes to tame inflation.

    5 minute read

  • August 30, 2022 | Law.com

    State Officials Agree to Pay More Than $163K in Seized COVID-19 Unemployment Funds to Incarcerated Workers

    "We are excited that our clients will finally see the return of their funds," Carol Garvan, legal director at the ACLU of Maine and lead counsel in the case, said in a statement. "These unemployment benefits will help people who are returning home from prison gain a measure of stability, enabling them to care for their children, pay their medical bills, and be a full part of their communities."

    3 minute read

  • August 30, 2022 | Daily Business Review

    Florida Judge Urged to Halt Controversial Education Law

    The lawsuit has been assigned to been assigned to U.S. District Judge Wendy Berger, who was named to the federal bench by former President Donald Trump after serving as a state appellate and circuit judge.

    4 minute read

  • August 30, 2022 | Legaltech News

    Multi-Billion Pound Meta Class Action Gets Court Date

    The proposed action is seeking compensation for Facebook users in the UK estimated to be approximately £2.2 billion.

    2 minute read

  • B.C. v. M.C.

    Publication Date: 2022-08-30
    Practice Area: Family Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court, Richmond
    Judge: Justice Ronald Castorina Jr.
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Counsel for the Plaintiff, B.C.: Michael J. Kuharski, Esq., Kuharski, Levitz & Giovinazzo, Staten Island, NY.
    for defendant: Counsel for Defendant, M.C.: Gary Burton Port, Esq., Port & Sava, Lynbrook, NY.

    Case Number: 50153/2020

    Military Disability Benefits Are Not Subject to Equitable Distribution in Divorce

  • People v. Zweifach

    Publication Date: 2022-08-30
    Practice Area: Criminal Law
    Industry:
    Court: Criminal Court, Richmond
    Judge: Judge Biju Koshy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: For the People by: A.D.A. Gabriella Giovinazzo, Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Richmond County, Staten Island, NY.
    for defendant: For the Defendant by: Andielynn Walters, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, Staten Island, NY.

    Case Number: CR-000606-22RI

    Court Dismisses Case Due to The People's Failure to Disclose Essential Discovery Items

  • In re: CVS Opioid Ins. Litig.

    Publication Date: 2022-08-30
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance | Pharmaceuticals | Retail
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Wallace
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Garrett B. Moritz, R. Garret Rice, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael S. Shuster, Daniel M. Sullivan, Blair E. Kaminsky, Daniel K. Phillips, Daniel M. Horowitz, Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, New York, NY; Susan Koehler Sullivan, Clyde & Co LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Robert M. Magino, Clyde & Co LLP, Morristown, NJ for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Robert J. Katzenstein, Julie M. O’Dell, Smith Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher J. St. Jeanos, James E. Fitzmaurice, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY; David J. Baldwin, Peter C. McGivney, Zachary J. Schnapp, Berger Harris LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kirk Pasich, Nathan M. Davis, Pasich LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Jeffrey L. Schulman, Peter A. Halprin, Pasich LLP, New York, NY for defendant.

    Case Number: D69940

    Court applied overwhelming hardship standard to motion to dismiss or stay for forum non conveniens where there was no evidence of a "race to the courthouse" by the parties such that their cases could be deemed contemporaneously filed and where there was no indication that plaintiffs had engaged in improper forum shopping.

  • Paul Capital Advisors, LLC v. Stahl

    Publication Date: 2022-08-30
    Practice Area: Trusts and Estates
    Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: David E. Ross, Eric D. Selden, A. Gage Whirley, Ross Aronstam & Moritz, LLP, Wilmington, DE; John F. Hartmann, P.C., Ravi Subramanian Shankar, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Ellis H. Huff, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Norman M. Powell, Emily V. Burton, Lauren Dunkle Fortunato, Michael E. Neminski, Nehama L. Hanoch, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Brett M. McCartney, Elizabeth A. Powers, Sarah T. Andrade, Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Michael K. Hurst, Sara H. Chelette, Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann, Dallas, TX for defendants.

    Case Number: D69936

    Sophisticated transactional arrangement did not list plaintiffs as beneficiaries or holders of beneficial interest in certain exchange trusts, therefore causing plaintiffs to lack standing to seek removal of the trust advisor of the exchange trusts.

  • Berkelhammer v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2022-08-30
    Practice Area: Employment Litigation
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court for New Jersey
    Judge: District Judge Salas
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-5696 (ES) (JRA)

    Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' ERISA complaint.