On June 12, New York's highest court ruled in a 4-1 decision that Martin Act claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations, rejecting the New York Attorney General's argument for a six-year limit, and overruling two lower courts' decisions.

In a much-anticipated decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has set aside the FCC's 2015 Declaratory Ruling, which broadly interpreted the TCPA's restrictions...

This Jones Day White Paper reviews the Court's most relevant decisions of the 2016–2017 Term and analyzes their possible effects on the business community.

Employers have not been generally successful under Specialty Healthcare when attempting to broaden petitioned-for bargaining units.

The Bankruptcy Code embodies the basic policy of affording relief to only the honest but unfortunate debtor.

The Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-587 (Jan. 20, 2016), held that a defendant's unaccepted offer to fully satisfy the plaintiff's claim does not moot the plaintiff's case.

The Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-587 (Jan. 20, 2016), held that a defendant's unaccepted offer to fully satisfy the plaintiff's claim does not moot the plaintiff's case.

The Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-587 (Jan. 20, 2016), held that a defendant's unaccepted offer to fully satisfy the plaintiff's claim does not moot the plaintiff's case.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that removal to federal court of an asbestos suit for liabilities based on products delivered to an agency of the United States government is appropriate.

The United States is an attractive forum for plaintiffs to challenge the actions of foreign states, due to U.S. courts' liberal discovery rules, higher damage awards, availability of class actions, and the absence of "loser pay" rules, but foreign states are generally immune from civil suits.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari recently in Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, a case expected to decide what constitutes employer liability under the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.