Court Litigating Prima Facie Case Statute 
Day on Torts
OCTOBER 3, 2022
Defendant filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to the TPPA, and after finding that the TPPA applied, that plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure in the context of this action, and that plaintiff “had not established a prima facie case for actual malice,” the trial court dismissed the case. The TPPA, Tenn.
JayS.Rothman&Associates
MAY 17, 2023
Protected Class Associational discrimination cases can be brought under various laws. For example, courts have held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from discrimination on the basis of their associates’ race, gender, religion, and/or national origin. The Supreme Court held in Thompson v.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Day on Torts
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
When a litigant has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), that motion should be analyzed under the provisions of the TPPA rather than under the traditional Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12 analysis. The Court of Appeals quoted Tenn. In Reiss v. Rock Creek Construction, Inc. ,
Patently O
DECEMBER 4, 2023
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Cozy, Inc. seeking to set aside a district court discovery order piercing attorney-client privilege. by Dennis Crouch In a recent decision, the U.S. In re: Cozy, Inc. , 2023-145 (Fed. 21-cv-10134-JGD. quoting Mohawk Indus., Carpenter , 558 U.S.
Patently O
JUNE 1, 2021
From 2003-2012, the PTO stopped examining Hyatt’s applications pending litigation in a couple of the cases that culminated in the Supreme Court’s decision in Kappos v. This case involves four applications that were rejected by the examiners and the PTAB. Hyatt , 566 U.S. 431 (2012). See Woodbridge v.
Conflict of Laws
JANUARY 15, 2023
The Federal Court Legislation Amendment Rules 2022 (Cth) (‘Amendment Rules’) came into force on 13 January 2023. Among other things, they amend the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (‘FCR’) by repealing division 10.4, The previous approach to service outside Australia in the Federal Court.
Conflict of Laws
JUNE 11, 2023
In Yin v Wu [2023] VSCA 130 , the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria set aside a judgment [1] which had affirmed the enforcement a Chinese judgment by an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. [2] On 13 October 2017, Wu commenced a proceeding against Yin in the Ningbo People’s Court.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content