From The Jury

HOUSTON - A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel heard oral arguments on Aug. 3 in a silicosis attorney's bid to have the fraud indictment against him tossed on double jeopardy grounds after the jury deadlocked at trial (United States v. Warren Todd Hoeffner, et al., No. 09-20781, 5th Cir.; See March 2010, Page 6). Full story on lexis.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. - A bank that contends that transportation ownership expenses are not permitted in a bankruptcy when a debtor has no car payment filed a brief on Aug. 6 in the U.S. Supreme Court, insisting that "phantom" expenses cannot be deducted from disposable income (Jason M. Ransom v. MBNA America Bank, No, 09-907, Chapter 13, U.S. Sup.; See 07/07/10, Page 4). Full story on lexis.com

SAN FRANCISCO - A California federal judge on Aug. 10 found that San Francisco-based banking giant Wells Fargo violated the state's unfair competition law and ordered it to pay $203 million in restitution based on claims that the company manipulated transactions in an effort to maximize overdraft fees charged to customers (Veronica Gutierrez, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., No. C 07-05923, N.D. Calif.; See May 2009, Page 12). Full story on lexis.com

BOSTON - A trial court erred in excluding an obstetrician's standard of care opinion on grounds that his extensive plaintiff-side work rendered him biased in a medical malpractice case, a First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held July 26 (Hazel I. Cruz-Vazquez, et al. v. Mennonite General Hospital, Inc., et al., No. 09-1758, 1st Cir.; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15263; See June 2009, Page 25). Full story on lexis.com

PENSACOLA, Fla. - Attorneys general challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on Aug. 6 filed in a Florida federal court a brief opposing dismissal of their case (State of Florida, et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 10-91, N.D. Fla., Pensacola Div.; See 7/7/10, Page 4). Full story on lexis.com

NEW ORLEANS - The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 16 remanded a dispute over a Louisiana federal judge's June 22 ruling striking down the federal government's six-month moratorium on offshore drilling operations of deepwater oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico. The Fifth Circuit directed the lower court to "consider the controversies" raised by the federal government's motion to vacate the preliminary injunction as moot (Hornbeck Offishore Services LLC, et al. v. Kenneth Lee Salazar, et al., No. 10-30585, 5th Cir.; See August 2010, Page 8). Full story on lexis.com

IRVINE, Calif. - Allergan Inc. said Sept. 1 that it will plead guilty to a federal misdemeanor charge related to off-label marketing of Botox and will pay a total of $600 million to the federal government in criminal and civil penalties. Full story on lexis.com

SCRANTON, Pa. - Underlying allegations that an insured purposely participated in a kickback scheme consist of intentional and/or malicious conspiratorial conduct on the part of the insured and not accidental conduct, a Pennsylvania federal judge held Aug. 31, further finding that coverage is precluded by certain policy exclusions (Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Robert K. Mericle and Mericle Construction Inc., No. 3:09-CV-1747, M.D. Pa.). Full story on lexis.com

NEW ORLEANS - Because an insurer accepted coverage for a chlorine gas release under the policy's pollution legal liability provision, the insured is not entitled to coverage under the policy's general liability provision pursuant to the policy's other coverages exclusion, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Aug. 24 (DPC Industries Inc. v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co., No. 09-20634, 5th Cir.; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17687). Full story on lexis.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The nation's largest retailer on Aug. 25 filed a petition for writ of certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a California federal judge's decision to certify a class of more than 1 million current and former female Walmart employees who claim that the company discriminated against them based on their gender (Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Betty Dukes, et al., No. 10A19, U.S. Sup.; See 5/6/10, Page 4). Full story on lexis.com