Portal Top Cases

Cruz v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16811 (August 11, 2011)

Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:27:00 -0400

LexisNexis Overview: Florida public policy that would invalidate waivers of class actions in cell phone customers' contracts was an obstacle to the Federal Arbitration Act's objective of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms, and was preempted; compelling individual arbitration was affirmed.

Counsel: For Lourdes Cruz, Appellant: Frank Paul Bland, Jr., Public Justice, P.C., WASHINGTON, DC.

For Curtis Smith, Appellant: Scott Wm Weinstein, Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Fort Myers, FL; Leslie A. Bailey, Public Justice, P.C., OAKLAND, CA; Amy Radon, Public Justice, P.C., WASHINGTON, DC.

For Cingular Wireless, LLC, Appellee: Evan M. Tager, Mayer Brown, LLP, WASHINGTON, DC; Jack Wilson, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, JACKSON, MS; Archis Ashok Parasharami, Mayer Brown LLP, WASHINGTON, DC; John J. Shahady, Adorno & Yoss, LLP, FT LAUDERDALE, FL.

For AARP, Amicus: Deborah M. Zuckerman, AARP Foundation

J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4800 (June 27, 2011)

dougesten.lnc@gmail.com (LexisNexis Community Staff) — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 07:54:00 -0400

LexisNexis Overview: In a consumer's products-liability case, only purposeful availment in New Jersey would have made personal jurisdiction consistent with Due Process, and since a British manufacturer did not have a single contact with New Jersey short of the product in question ending up there, the finding of jurisdiction was reversed.

Counsel: Arthur F. Fergenson argued the cause for petitioner.

Alexander W. Ross, Jr. argued the cause for respondent.

Judges: KENNEDY, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which ALITO, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of

Counsel: Mark A. Perry argued the cause for petitioner.

Curtis E. Gannon argued the cause for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of court.

David C. Frederick argued the cause for respondent.

Judges: THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and ALITO, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of In affirming the district court's judgment of conviction, the court principally considered whether the district court erred in giving a "willful blindness" instruction. Affirming, the court concluded that a willful blindness instruction that applied to a defendant's knowledge of the law in a criminal tax case would not run afoul of Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1991)Plaintiff on-line retailers (OLRs) appealed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (New York), which dismissed their complaints, seeking a declaratory judgment that challenged the constitutionality of Tax Law § 1101(b)(8)(vi), as amended on April 23, 2008, on commerce

PPL Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Comm'r, 2010 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 31 (T.C. Sept. 9, 2010)

LexisNexisStaffTax@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Tax Center ) — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 08:10:00 -0400

The IRS had declared a deficiency in 1997 federal income tax paid by PPL Corporation, the common parent of a group filing consolidated returns, denying its refund claim. At issue inter alia was the correctness of an IRS claim that a "windfall tax" paid by PPL's indirect United Kingdom subsidiary LLC per Finance (No. 2) Act 1997, c. 58, Pt I, clause 1 (Eng.) was not creditable per IRC Sec. 901The taxpayer, domiciled outside of Oregon, and its subsidiaries were inthe wireline and wireless telecommunications business. When the taxpayer executed transactions related to the sale of stock, it was, for practical purposes, no longer engaged in wireless operations, and treated the gain on the stock sale as nonbusiness income, none allocated to Oregon. The assets deemed to have been sold were all assets that had been employed in a unitary business operating, in part, in Oregon. In CenturyTel, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 2010 Ore. Tax LEXIS 222 (Or. T.C. Aug. 9, 2010)The Service determined a $183,458,981 deficiency in the Chesapeake Corporation's Federal income tax, asserting that Chesapeake owed a $36,691,796 substantial understatement of income tax penalty under section 6662(a) for 1999. Chesapeake's subsidiary's contributed its

Bilski v. Kappos, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5521 (U.S. June 28, 2010)

LexisNexisStaffTax@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Tax Center ) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:59:00 -0400

The Supreme Court, for the first time since the Federal Circuit's decision in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), addressed the

Robinson Knife Mfg. Co. v. Comm'r, 600 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2010)

LexisNexisStaffTax@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Tax Center ) — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:32:00 -0400

Robinson Knife Mfg. Co. v. Comm'r, 600 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2010) held that, where a producer's royalty payments (1) are calculated as a percentage of sales revenue from inventory and (2) are incurred only upon the sale of that inventory, they are immediately deductible as a matter of law because they are not properly allocable to property produced within the meaning of The California Franchise Tax Board's decision to recoup the Cal Rev & Tax Code § 24402 dividends received deduction against a taxpayer was proper where Board proceeded with proper authority to remedy Commerce Clause violation infecting The IRS acknowledged that assessed federal income taxes were dischargeable in bankruptcy, even though relevant returns for two tax years were not timely filed. Congress did not intend to repeal the law that taxes assessed in accordance with a return filed late are governed primarily by 11 U.S.C.S. Sec. 523(a)(1)(B)(ii) -- (not Sec. 523(a)(1)(B)(i)). Sharp v. United States (In re Sharp), 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 4416 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept

Gill v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67874 (D. Mass. July 8, 2010)

LexisNexisStaffTax@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Tax Center ) — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:22:00 -0400

Married same-gender couples were entitled to file federal income taxes jointly with their spouses, and the government has no rational basis for denying federal benefits to married same-sex couples. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), holding that it violates equal protection principles of the due process clause in the Fifth Amendment. Legislative provisions which arbitrarily or irrationally create discrete classes cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Denying married same-sex couples the right to file federal income taxes jointly did not bear a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.

LEXIS.com users can view the enhanced version of

A.W. Fin. Servs., S.A. v. Empire Res., Inc., 981 A.2d 1114 (Del. 2009)

LexisNexisStaffTax@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Tax Center ) — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 13:19:00 -0400

Tracking unclaimed property dormancy periods can present administrative problems for holders. Aside from reporting delinquency hazards that may follow a holder's failure to heed dormancy period limits, liability issues can emerge if the holder prematurely allows property to be escheated. Here, the plaintiff stockholder alleged that the holder defendant turned over the plaintiff's shares of stock before the Delaware dormancy period had elapsed. Factual questions were involved, along with a predecessor in interest, and a request for and issuance of a replacement shares. In addition, there was a question as to whether the state's dormancy period change from five years to three years should apply retroactively. The Supreme Court of Delaware held that the dormancy period change did not apply retroactively; that the Escheat statute did not supersede common law or statutory causes of action; that

No Waiver in Accounting Firm Workpaper Case, D.C. Circuit Holds

LexisNexisStaffTax@placeholder.com (LexisNexis Tax Center ) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 08:48:00 -0400

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled June 29 that the government could not compel an accounting firm to disclose a taxpayer's workpapers containing attorney work product because the documents were privileged and no waiver had occurred. United States v. Deloitte LLP, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13226 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

The U.S. Supreme Court will not consider whether a San Francisco law requiring employers to help fund healthcare for the uninsured is preempted by federal law. On June 28, 2010, the Court announced that it will not grant certiorari in Golden Gate Rest. Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco, letting stand the U.S. Court of Appeals decision that the city's ordinance is not preempted by ERISA, the federal ban on state and local regulation of employee benefit plans.

OVERVIEW of

Morrison v. Nat'l Austl. Bank, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5257 (June 24, 2010)

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:57:00 -0400

LexisNexis Overview: Where foreign shareholders alleged that respondents violated § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 regarding securities traded on foreign exchanges, dismissal was warranted because § 10(b) applied only to transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges and domestic transactions in other securities.

Judges: SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

OPINION BY:SCALIA

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of City of Pontiac Gen. Emples

Smith v. Copeland, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51157 (N.D. Ga. May 21, 2010)

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:12:00 -0400

LexisNexis Core Terms: fiduciary duties, cause of action, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, investors, attorney's fee, punitive damages, respondeat superior, stolen, factual allegations, sale of securities, participated, fraudulent, predicate acts, scheme to defraud, securities fraud, broker-dealer, custodian, requisite elements, unregistered, misconduct, connected, conspired, conferred, punitive, defraud, personal property, pattern of racketeering activity, proximately

Counsel: For Joel Smith, Jr., Carolyn Smith, Norman Jones, Irene Jones, Christopher Robinson, On behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs: Corey Daniel Holzer, Marshall P. Dees, Michael Ira Fistel, Jr., William Woodhull Stone, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Holzer, Holzer & Fistel, LLC, Atlanta, GA.

For Robert Price Copeland, Defendant: Irene B. Vanderels, Hartman Simons & Wood LLP, Atlanta, GA.

James Stephen Quay, Defendant, Pro

Fox v. Jamdat Mobile, 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3799 (Cal. App. May 25, 2010)

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:11:00 -0400

LexisNexis Core Terms: acquisition, shareholder, demurrer, ratification, cause of action, voting, proxy statement, exclusivity, stock, duty of loyalty, merger, board of directors, merger agreement, proxy, fiduciary, per share, judicial notice, sufficient information, diligence, duty of care, disclosure, approve, confidentiality, wireless, mobile, metrics, buyers, common stock, stockholder's, sustaining

Counsel: Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, Randall J. Baron, Kevin K. Green and David T. Wissbroecker, for Plaintiff and Intervenor-Appellant.

Fenwick & West, Kevin P. Muck, Felix S. Lee and Christine A. Vogelei, for Defendants and Respondents.

Judge: RUBIN, J. WE CONCUR: BIGELOW, P. J., FLIER, J.

Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of

Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys. v. Caiafa, 2010 Del. LEXIS 230 (Del. May 21, 2010)

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:42:00 -0400

LexisNexis Overview: As a vice chancellor of a court of chancery determined that a former stockholder's derivative suit claims were worthless and added no conceivable value to a merger, his approval of a settlement that allowed a corporation to be acquired in the merger was not an abuse of discretion.

Counsel: Stuart M. Grant, Jay W. Eisenhofer, Michael J. Barry and Diane Zilka of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, Delaware. Of Counsel: Blair A. Nicholas, Niki L. Mendoza, David A. Thorpe and Jon F. Worm of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, San Diego, California; Lester L. Levy Carl L. Stine and Robert Plosky, Wolf Popper LLP, New York, NY attorneys for appellants.

Pamela S. Tikellis, Robert J. Kriner, Jr. and Scott M. Tucker of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Of Counsel: Steven J. Toll and Julie Goldsmith Reiser of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Jeffrey