We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Christina L. Clark Faegre Baker Daniels

Results 1 to 5 of 6



Supreme Court decides Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission *

USA - February 27 2013
On February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 11-1274, holding that 28 U.S.C. § 2462's five-year…

Co-authors: Bruce Jones .


Supreme Court decides Clapper v. Amnesty International USA *

USA - February 26 2013
On February 26, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, No. 11-1025, holding that attorneys and human rights, labor…

Co-authors: Bruce Jones .


Supreme Court decides Armour v. City of Indianapolis *

USA - June 4 2012
On June 4, 2012, the United States Supreme Court decided Armour v. City of Indianapolis, No. 11-161, affirming the Indiana Supreme Court's decision and holding that when a municipality switches from one method of infrastructure financing to another, the municipality's decision to forgive certain financial obligations arising under the prior financing method may be justified for equal protection purposes by administrative concerns even when the forgiveness creates disparate consequences.

Co-authors: Jon Laramore.


Supreme Court decides Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc. *

USA - May 24 2012
On May 24, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., No. 10-1042, holding that 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b), a portion of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), unambiguously requires that a complaining party must show that a charge for real estate settlement services was divided between two or more persons.

Co-authors: Jon Laramore.


Supreme Court decides Astrue v. Capato *

USA - May 21 2012
On May 21, 2012, the Supreme Court decided Astrue v. Capato, (No. 11-159), holding, pursuant to § 416(h) of the Social Security Act, that a biological child is entitled to Social Security survivors benefits only if the child qualifies for inheritance from the decedent under state intestacy law or satisfies one of the statutory alternatives to that requirement.

Co-authors: Bruce Jones .


Next »