Worldwide: Court Procedure

New York's outdated evidence rules make it nearly impossible for child sexual abuse survivors to prove their cases in court. By requiring prior consistent statements to predate a "motive to lie" and limiting their use only when explicit accusations of dishonesty arise, the state's legal framework contradicts modern understanding of trauma disclosure. Could adopting federal evidence standards finally give survivors a fair chance at justice?

A King County Superior Court's injunctive relief ruling in a youth baseball business dispute has temporarily shut down Top Tier Sports' operations in Washington State through July 2027. The court found the defendants liable for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and other claims after former employees of Elysian One launched a competing league. This case demonstrates the far-reaching consequences of violating non-compete and non-solicitation agreements, with implications extending beyond

A U.S. bankruptcy court has recognized bar date orders from a Canadian asbestos restructuring proceeding, marking a significant development in cross-border mass tort resolution. The decision explores whether foreign insolvency proceedings can enforce claims deadlines on U.S. claimants when such procedures differ from domestic bankruptcy practice.

A recent New York Court of Appeals decision demonstrates the strict consequences of failing to file a timely notice of claim under CPLR 9802 when pursuing contractual claims against incorporated villages. The case examines whether a village can assert this statutory defense after engaging in extensive litigation, and explores the narrow circumstances under which equitable estoppel might prevent enforcement of the notice requirement.

A federal judge in Florida has ruled that cell phone users cannot sue under the TCPA's do-not-call provisions, determining that the FCC exceeded its authority when it extended protections to wireless subscribers in 2003. The decision challenges decades of regulatory interpretation and could fundamentally reshape telecommunications privacy litigation if adopted by other courts.

The Second Circuit has affirmed the Tax Court’s rulings against Soroban Capital Partners LP, holding that the firm’s three principals were not “limited partners” for purposes of the self-employment tax exclusion found in I.R.C. § 1402(a)(13), despite formally holding limited partner status under Delaware law. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a partner’s distributive share of partnership income is generally treated as self-employment income subject to the 15.3 percent self-employment tax on income up to $184,500 in 2026 (2.9 percent rate above that threshold), which funds Social Security and Medicare. Section 1402(a)(13), however, excludes from that tax the distributive share of a “limited partner, as such,” other than guaranteed payments for services rendered.

Director Squires issued written opinions in two recent PTAB proceedings examining critical threshold questions about prior art qualification. One case explored whether sufficient evidence supported an earlier invention date to antedate prior art, while the other determined if a reference was publicly accessible before the patent's priority date.

After the fall of the Empire in China in 1912, and before the takeover of China by the Communists in 1949, there was a period in which a number of warlords controlled different areas of China. The United States felt that there was a need for certainty in the dealings of its citizens abroad therefore, for more than two decades in the early twentieth century, the United States maintained an unusual federal court on foreign soil—one that exercised full judicial authority over American citizens living and working in China.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has begun processing IEEPA tariff refunds through its CAPE system, but Phase III covering finally liquidated entries faces delays and requires court orders. With the Department of Justice appealing the universal refund order and class certification pending, importers with finally liquidated entries may need to file individual lawsuits at the Court of International Trade to preserve their claims before statutory deadlines expire.