Noah Gordon

United States Supreme Court (11 summaries)

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.

Providing that the elements of issue preclusion are met, if the usage adjudicated by the administrative agency are materially the same as the usage adjudicated by the district court, issue preclusion should apply.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl

The Tax Injunction Act does not bar suits in federal district courts where petitioners seek to enjoin enforcement of notice and reporting requirements, which is different than assessment, collection, or levy of taxes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Holt v.Hobbs

RLUIPA does not allow a Department of Corrections to enforce a policy that prohibits an inmate from growing a half inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans

Under the Truth In Lending Act a borrower only needs to give written notice to his lender within three years when the borrower chooses to rescind a loan; the borrower does not need to file a lawsuit.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens

A defendant's notice of removal only needs to include a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy is more than the jurisdictional threshold; it does not need to contain evidentiary submissions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Harris v. Quinn

The First Amendment prohibits collecting an agency fee from non-public employees who do not support or wish to join a union.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer

There is no "presumption of prudence" for an Employee Stock Ownership Plan fiduciary; they are subject only to the duty of prudence that applies to all ERISA fiduciaries in general, with the exception of the diversification requirement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Loughrin v. United States

18 U.S.C. §1344(2) does not require the government to prove that a defendant intended to defraud a financial institution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

A patent’s indefiniteness renders it invalid if its claims fail to inform skilled artisans about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Martinez v. Illinois

Jeopardy attaches when a jury is empanelled and sworn, thus a not-guilty verdict cannot be appealed without subjecting a defendant to double jeopardy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Octane Fitness, LLC. v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.

The Brooks Furniture framework is unduly rigid and inconsistent with the statutory text of 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (4 summaries)

Kansas v. Gleason

Whether a capital-sentencing jury is required by the Eighth Amendment to be affirmatively instructed, as the Kansas Supreme Court held, that mitigating circumstances need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or if the Eight Amendment is satisfied by merely providing instructions that make clear that every juror must weigh and assess mitigating circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Whether it was error for the Federal Circuit to hold that it is a defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) that a defendant thought a patent was invalid.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc.

Whether Medicaid providers have a right to enforce 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) under the Supremacy Clause where Congress did not give that right.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc.

Whether a state commits discrimination when it requires industrial and commercial businesses, including rail carriers, to pay sales-and-use-tax, but exempts rail carriers’ competitors from the tax, and whether other aspects of the state’s taxation should be considered in addition to the tax provision challenged.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law