Litigation Law, Mediation Law and Arbitration Law

For hundreds of years, the world’s sovereign nations refused to allow any other foreign sovereign to be sued in their courts without the sovereign’s consent. The guiding principle was “absolute sovereign immunity,” an outgrowth of the ancient legal precept rex non potest peccare, understood to mean “the king can do no wrong.” The principle also was recognized as wise foreign policy because it extended "grace and comity" to other sovereigns.

Recent federal court decisions are reshaping the landscape of personal jurisdiction and enforcement of international arbitration awards following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. The DC and Ninth Circuits have issued critical opinions clarifying how Fifth Amendment due process standards apply differently than traditional Fourteenth Amendment minimum contacts analysis, particularly in cases involving foreign sovereigns and international arbitration. These deve

The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Paxton v. City of Austin reveals a procedural trap for businesses suing the government: winning the right to be heard can paradoxically freeze the entire case. When governmental defendants challenge a court's jurisdiction and lose, they can immediately appeal, putting all proceedings on hold—potentially for months or years.

Closing arguments represent a trial attorney's final opportunity to shape jury deliberations by providing a persuasive framework for interpreting evidence and reaching a verdict. This analysis explores how experienced litigators craft compelling narratives, address weaknesses, and connect logic with emotion to guide jurors toward their desired outcome.

A federal court in Iowa denied summary judgment to Medicare Health Advisors after defense counsel failed to properly authenticate Jornaya lead records and establish hearsay exceptions in a TCPA class action. The ruling highlights critical procedural mistakes in presenting consent evidence and reveals how improper handling of third-party verification records can transform a potential defense victory into millions of dollars in litigation exposure.

The Iowa Supreme Court recently addressed whether a workers' compensation claimant who settles with their employer through a compromise agreement can pursue subsequent claims against the Second Injury Fund. The decision clarifies critical distinctions between settlement types and their impact on establishing employer liability for permanent disability. Understanding how settlement language affects future claims is essential for both claimants and defendants navigating Iowa's workers' compensation system.

When multiple family members seek estate planning services together, can one attorney represent everyone? This article examines the complex ethical boundaries that govern attorney-client relationships in family estate planning, exploring when joint representation is permissible and when conflicts of interest require separate counsel.

A U.S. District Court examined whether a commercial general liability insurer must defend and indemnify a trucking contractor after a municipality sought to recover costs for remediating unlawfully deposited demolition debris. The court analyzed whether the property damage constituted an "occurrence" under the policy's definition of an accident, considering the insured's intentional placement of the debris and applicable policy exclusions.

A Texas Business Court examines the boundaries of derived judicial immunity for court-appointed receivers and the entities they create, addressing whether immunity survives appellate reversal and extends beyond the receiver personally. The decision clarifies when post-closing litigation against receivers may be barred and what parties must plead to overcome immunity defenses.

Closing arguments represent a trial attorney's final opportunity to shape jury deliberations by providing a persuasive framework for interpreting evidence and reaching a verdict. This analysis explores how experienced litigators craft compelling narratives, address weaknesses, and connect logic with emotion to guide jurors toward their desired outcome.

A federal court in California denied preliminary approval of a $2.3 million data breach settlement affecting over 220,000 individuals, finding seven critical deficiencies in the proposed agreement. The decision highlights the rigorous scrutiny courts apply to class action settlements, particularly regarding claims-made distribution processes, inadequate documentation of settlement value, and unexplained disparate treatment among class members.

After 12 years of litigation, the Ninth Circuit has finally ruled in the epic trademark dispute between Jack Daniel's and VIP Products over the "Bad Spaniels" dog toy parody. The court's decision establishes crucial new standards for proving dilution by tarnishment, requiring brand owners to demonstrate mark-specific fame and actual reputational harm rather than relying on offensive associations alone.