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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-10 of 23

Plaintiff Sent Packing: Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • March 21 2016

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Maryland district court's determination that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction


Trenchant analysis or jiggery-pokery? U.S. Supreme Court upholds Affordable Care Act
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • June 26 2015

In a 6-3 decision on June 25, 2015 in King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court held that tax credits are available under the Patient Protection and


"Privacy driven": Supreme Court limits use of driver data for client solicitation by attorneys
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • June 18 2013

Does the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, allow lawyers to mine databases maintained by state departments of motor


Supreme Court to hear appeal on constitutionality of health reform law
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • November 16 2011

On Monday, November 14, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear an appeal from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is unconstitutional.


Eleventh Circuit rules PPACA mandate is unconstitutional Supreme Court review likely
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • August 15 2011

On August 12, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was unconstitutional because it exceeded enumerated congressional authority under the commerce clause of the Constitution, but that the mandate was severable, with the result that the remainder of PPACA is constitutional.


Tax Injunction Act does not bar a levy imposed on a single entity
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • August 9 2011

On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the federal district court for the District of Maryland has jurisdiction to adjudicate a case involving the constitutionality and validity of a carbon dioxide emissions levy (Emissions Levy) enacted in 2010 by Montgomery County, Maryland (County).


Another strike against PPACA
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • February 2 2011

A second court has ruled that the individual mandate to maintain health insurance coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is unconstitutional.


U.S. Supreme Court raises the bar for state tax cases in federal court
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • June 4 2010

On June 1, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc., 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4380 (2010) holding that the doctrine of comity precludes federal courts, independently from the Tax Injunction Act (TIA), from considering a taxpayer challenge to a competitor’s alleged unconstitutionally favorable tax treatment.


Fourth Circuit adopts case-by-case analysis of attribution standard for fraud-on-the-market theory
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • June 3 2009

In In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, No. 07-1607 (4th Cir. May 7, 2009), the Fourth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision and held that Plaintiffs’ 10(b) primary liability claim and Plaintiffs’ 20(a) control person liability claim were sufficiently pled.


Court reverses prior ruling that commodity supply contract is not swap agreement under Bankruptcy Code
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • February 13 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued an opinion, reversing an earlier bankruptcy court ruling that had revived the question of whether a physical supply contract may qualify as a forward contract or swap agreement for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code.