- In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad (No. 22-1168), the Court’s three most conservative justices united with its two most liberal ones to uphold a Pennsylvania statute providing that companies that register to do business in the state thereby consent to the Pennsylvania courts exercising general personal jurisdiction
David R. Roth
Dave is a Partner in the firm’s Litigation Department, where he focuses on appellate and complex civil litigation. As a member of the firm’s Appellate Group, Dave has successfully represented clients in the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal courts of appeal, and various state supreme and intermediate appellate courts.
Haaland v. Brackeen (No. 21-376), United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. (No. 21-1052), Lora v. United States (No. 21-376)
Posted in OT22, Supreme Court Updates
- Pugin v. Garland (No. 22-23), a 6-3 decision (with Justices Jackson and Gorsuch swapping places from the most-common 6-3 line-up) holding that an offense can “relate to obstruction of
Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski (No. 21-806), Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin (No. 22-227), Smith v. United States (No. 21-1576)
Posted in OT22, Supreme Court Updates
Allen v. Milligan (No. 21-1086), Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (No. 22-148), Dubin v. United States (No. 22-10)
Posted in OT22, Supreme Court Updates
Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 174 (No. 21-1449), Slack Technologies v. Pirani (No. 22-200), United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. (No. 21-1326)
Posted in OT22, Supreme Court Updates
- In Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 174 (No. 21-1449), the Court addressed when state-law tort claims can be brought in connection with a labor-union action without being preempted
Tyler v. Hennepin County (No. 22-166), Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (No. 21-454), Dupree v. Younger (No. 22-210)
Posted in OT22, Supreme Court Updates
- Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (No. 21-454), in which the Court (quasi-unanimously) narrowed the scope of