Law Commons^™

Brief Of Appellant, Matthew Bredlow V. State Of Maryland, No. 621, Paul Dewolfe, Renée M. Hutchins, Ardalun Kamali

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Appellant, Mark Andrew Matthews V. State Of Maryland, No. 327, Paul Dewolfe, Renée M. Hutchins, Jesse M. Lachman

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Appellant, John Hill V. State Of Maryland, No. 2740, Paul Dewolfe, Renée M. Hutchins, Silva Georgian

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Appellant, James Goss V. State Of Maryland, No. 669, Paul Dewolfe, Renée M. Hutchins, Lisa M. Johnson

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, is a plaintiff required to show that he was replaced by someone outside his or her protected group? (2) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff prior to:bringing a civil action must first file a charge with the EEOC, usually within 300 days of the action complained of. The Question Presented is: Where a claimant files a timely Title VII charge asserting that employer conduct was the result of a particular unlawful motive, may the claimant after the end of the charge-filing period …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3646, 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet

Court Briefs

The District Court correctly determined that the challenged speech of Dr. Steven Novella was not commercial speech for purposes of applying the Lanham Act. Appellant’s argument to the contrary conflates “seeking profit” with “commercial speech.”

Reply Brief Of Petitioners. Knight V. Thompson, 136 S.Ct. 2534 (2016) (No. 15-999), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1645, 2016 Wl 1555013+A12, Eric Schnapper, Mark Sabel, Peter Fruin, Randall C. Marshall, Roy S. Haber

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") prohibits state and local governments from imposing "a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person": (1) "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest," and (2) "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a). The Question Presented is: Whether RLUIPA requires that prison officials actually consider and demonstrate a sufficient basis for rejecting widely …

Brief In Opposition. City Of Houston V. Zamora, 136 S.Ct. 2009 (2016) (No. 15-868), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1615, 2016 Wl 1445907, Eric Schnapper, Kim Ogg, Scott Poerschke, Randall L. Kallinen, Robert Mcknight, Jr.

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Does the liability standard in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011), apply to retaliation claims under Title VII? (2) Under Staub, where a supervisor for an unlawful purpose has engaged in conduct that was intended to and did in fact cause an adverse employment action, the existence of an independent investigation by other officials does not limit liability unless that investigation reveals a new basis for that adverse action that is “unrelated” to the conduct of the supervisor. The second question presented is: Should the Court overturn the decision in Staub, and hold that an …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Flowers V. Troup County School District, 136 S.Ct. 2510 (2016) (No. 15-1144), 2016 Wl 1042969, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., held in an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, that a plaintiff may ordinarily prove the existence of an unlawful motive by establishing a prima facie case and demonstrating the falsity of the employer’s proffered explanation for the disputed employment, and that a plaintiff who does so need not also offer some other additional evidence of discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit held in this Title VII action that the existence of an unlawful motive may not be established in that manner; a plaintiff who establishes a prima facie case and the …

Brief Of The Catholic University Of America School Of Canon Law, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, The Queens Federation Of Churches, And The Serbian Orthodox Church In North And South America, As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett, David H. Hyams

Court Briefs

This brief addresses the importance of the principle of church autonomy and the protections provided by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and this Court's precedents regarding religious denominations' internal mandatory dispute-resolution procedures.

Petion For A Writ Of Certiorari. Knight V. Thompson, 136 S.Ct. 2534 (2016) (No. 15-999), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 542, 2016 Wl 447654, Eric Schnapper, Mark Sabel, Peter Fruin, Randall C. Marshall, Roy S. Haber

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED In Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853 (2015), this Court held that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), renders unlawful an absolute ban on inmates' wearing a beard for religious reasons. The Eleventh Circuit, subsequent to and despite this Court's decision in Holt, rejected a RLUIPA challenge to Alabama's similarly inflexible policy prohibiting all male inmates from wearing long hair for religious reasons. A vast majority of states, the District of Columbia, and all federal prisons accommodate inmates whose religious practices include wearing beards or long hair. The Question Presented is: Whether Alabama's …

Reply Brief. Frew V. Traylor, 136 S.Ct. 1159 (2016) (No. 15-483), Eric Schnapper, Timothy B. Garrigan, Timothy David Craig, Jane Swanson

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Litigation regarding the legal responsibilities of large institutions, such as schools or prisons, is frequently resolved by consent decree. The widespread use of such consent decrees regularly gives rise to inter-related disputes about how to interpret provisions of those decrees, and about when the decrees themselves have been satisfied and may thus be dissolved. In the instant case the Fifth Circuit, expressly disagreeing with the standards applied in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, interpreted in a narrow manner, and then ordered dissolution of, key provisions earlier agreed to by Texas that protect the rights of millions of indigent …

Brief Amici Curiae Of 37 Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petition For Certiorari, Mark A. Lemley, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

This case presents two issues that justify this Court’s review.

First, the Federal Circuit upheld a finding of design patent infringement based on the very same Apple designs that it found functional under trade dress law. Such a counterintuitive outcome is possible because the Federal Circuit has constructed a highly constrained definition of functionality in design patent law, which is at odds with this Court’s precedent in both utility patent and trade dress cases. Coupled with its recent re-interpretation of the design patent infringement standard, the Federal Circuit’s approach to functionality makes it quite likely that defendants will be held …

Brief For Legal Ethics And Labor Law Professors As Amici Curiae Supporting Appellants, Nat'l Fed'n Of Indep. Bus. V. Perez, Ruben J. Garcia

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae On Behalf Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petitioner, Mark Mckenna, Mark A. Lemley, Christopher Jon Sprigman, Rebecca Tushnett

Court Briefs

In its 1976 revision of the Copyright Act, Congress decided to separate applied art from industrial design, admitting the former to copyright and excluding the latter. It drew this distinction precisely because it intended to differentiate copyright from design and utility patent. Congress recognized as applied art only those aesthetic features of a useful article that could be “separated” from that useful article rather than being integrated into the article.

The correct test of separability therefore considers conceptual separability to be nothing more than a coda to physical separability, and asks only whether the claimed design could be removed from …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors In Support Of Appellees, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

The District Court correctly determined that Phoenix failed to state a trademark claim because Basket Case’s activities cannot have caused any relevant confusion.1 Phoenix’s fundamental complaint is about unauthorized use of its intangible content—karaoke tracks. Under Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003), however, only confusion regarding the source of physical goods is actionable under the Lanham Act; confusion regarding the source of the karaoke tracks or their authorization is not actionable. Phoenix cannot avoid Dastar just because Basket Case creates digital copies of those tracks, as Basket Case does not sell digital files or …

Reply Brief For Petitioner. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3941, 2015 Wl 6748880, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green established a common method of analyzing evidence of an unlawful discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the disputed action; where the defendant has done so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the proffered purpose was a pretext for discrimination. This Court has repeatedly explained that the burden of establishing a prima facie case is “not onerous.” United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens held, in the context of a case which had gone to …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Frew V. Traylor, 136 S.Ct. 1159 (2016) (No. 15-483), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3632, 2015 Wl 6083505, Eric Schnapper, Timothy B. Garrigan, Timothy David Craig, Jane Swanson

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Litigation regarding the legal responsibilities of large institutions, such as schools or prisons, is frequently resolved by consent decree. The widespread use of such consent decrees regularly gives rise to inter-related disputes about how to interpret provisions of those decrees, and about when the decrees themselves have been satisfied and may thus be dissolved. In the instant case the Fifth Circuit, expressly disagreeing with the standards applied in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, interpreted in a narrow manner, and then ordered dissolution of, key provisions earlier agreed to by Texas that protect the rights of millions of indigent …

Brief For Respondents. Tyson Foods, Inc. V. Bouaphakeo, 136 S.Ct. 1036 (2016) (No. 14-1146), 2015 Wl 5634431, David C. Frederick, Derek T. Ho, Matthew A. Seligman, Robert L. Wiggins Jr., Scott Michelman, Scott L. Nelson, Allison M. Zieve, Eric Schnapper

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether, in this class and collective action for wage-and-hour violations arising out of an employer's failure properly to compensate employees for time spent donning and doffing protective equipment and walking between sites where work was performed, the district court abused its discretion in granting certification where plaintiffs proceeded to prove the amount of work they did using individual timesheet evidence and representative proof concerning donning, doffing, and walking times in accordance with Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946).

2. Whether a class or collective action may be certified when it contains members …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Scholars In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett, Ryan A. Shores, William J. Haun

Court Briefs

“[I]n a complex society and an era of pervasive governmental regulation, defining the proper realm for free exercise can be difficult.” Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2781, 2785 (2014) (Kennedy, J., concurring). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”)2 addresses that difficulty by harmonizing religious freedom and the interests of third parties. RFRA will not exempt free exercise from a law’s command simply because the law substantially burdens religion—nor will it deny a religious exemption simply because the exemption would affect a third party.

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2659, 2015 Wl 4651685, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green established a common method of analyzing evidence of an unlawful discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the disputed action; where the defendant has done so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the proffered purpose was a pretext for discrimination. This Court has repeatedly explained that the burden of establishing a prima facie case is “not onerous.” United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens held, in the context of a case which had gone to …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Rochow V. Life Insurance Company Of North America, 136 S. Ct. 480 (2015) (No. 15-163), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2657, Eric Schnapper, Erik W. Scharf, John J. Cooper

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED When a benefit plan, in violation of ERISA, wrongfully denies or delays payment of a benefit, the court may award relief because of the improper delay in the payment of that benefit. The question presented is: Should 'the amount of a remedy based on the improper delay in the payment of a benefit be based on: (1) only the amount needed to redress the loss that the beneficiary sustained as a result of the wrongful delay (the rule in the Sixth Circuit), (2) either the amount needed to redress the loss that the beneficiary sustained as a result …

Brief Of Law Professors Bruce P. Frohnen, Robert P. George, Alan J. Meese, Michael P. Moreland, Nathan B. Oman, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Rodney K. Smith, Steven D. Smith, And O. Carter Snead As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, O. Carter Snead, Robert P. George, Alan J. Meese, Michael P. Moreland, Nathan B. Oman, Michael` Stokes Paulsen`, Rodney K. Smith, Steven D. Smith

Court Briefs

Suppose a federal law required government officials to enter a Catholic church and use church property to distribute contraceptives and abortifacients over church’s objection. Such a law would surely burden the church’s religion, even if the government paid for the objectionable medications and compensated the church for the use of its resources. By commandeering church property, such a law would force the church to be complicit in activity to which it has serious religious objections

Brief Amicus Curiae For The National Employment Lawyers Association In Support Of Petitioner. Green V. Brennan, 136 S.Ct. 1769 (2016) (No. 14-613), 2015 Wl 4381189, Roberta L. Steele, Eric Schnapper

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Defendant-Appellee National Football League, Mark Mckenna, Rebecca Tushnet

Court Briefs

Based on the undisputed facts, the NFL’s films in this case are noncommercial speech; their profit-seeking and brand-building nature are standard features of noncommercial speech. Truthful, nondefamatory noncommercial speech deserves full First Amendment protection, and there is no justification for allowing Appellants to control speech about them in this case.

Separately, Appellants’ right of publicity claims are preempted by the Copyright Act, which allows owners of copyrighted works to exploit those works by reproduction, distribution, creation of derivative works, and public performance—precisely the conduct at issue here.

Finally, Appellants’ trademark claims are also precluded by the First Amendment, given that …

Reply Brief. Hildebrand V. Allegheny County (No. 14-363), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3445, Eric Schnapper, Marjorie E. Crist

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Respondent. United States V. Wong, 134 S.Ct. 2873 (2014) (No. 13-1074), 2014 Wl 5804278, Eric Schnapper, Tom Steenson, Beth Creighton, Michael Rose

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Is the six-month limit on filing suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), jurisdictional?

2. If the six-month limit for filing suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2401(b), is not jurisdictional, is it subject to equitable tolling?

Reply Brief For Appellants. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus V. Alabama, 135 S.Ct. 1257 (2015) (No. 13-895), 2014 Wl 5475026, Eric Schnapper, James U. Blacksher, Edward Still, U.W. Clemon

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Hildebrand V. Allegheny County (No. 14-363), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3445, Eric Schnapper, Marjorie E. Crist

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which forbids age-based discrimination against state and local government employees, preclude those employees from bringing a section 1983 action to redress age discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause?