password
username
Sponsored by CakeMail, an email marketing software
Newsletter preview


May 13, 2008

Table of Contents

LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL RIGHTS, CONTRACTS, GOVERNMENT LAW, MANUFACTURING, TAX LAW
• S&M Brands, Inc. v. Cooper

GOVERNMENT LAW, HEALTH LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
• U.S. ex rel Marlar v. BWXT Y-12, LLC

IMMIGRATION LAW
• Ukpabi v. Mukasey

You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com.

LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL RIGHTS, CONTRACTS, GOVERNMENT LAW, MANUFACTURING, TAX LAW
S&M Brands, Inc. v. Cooper, No. 06-5828, 06-5829
In an action involving the Tennessee's Attorney General's enforcement of an amended escrow provision in the Master Settlement Agreement between various states and tobacco manufacturers alleging an impermissible retroactive effect in violation of due process, a summary judgment ruling is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice on grounds of sovereign immunity where: 1) continuous application of the retroactive statute is unlikely; 2) states enjoy immunity in federal court for tax-related claims; 3) the inherent dignity of the sovereign state favors immunity; and 4) the semi-tax nature of the escrow system would better lend itself to a suit in state court. Read more...

GOVERNMENT LAW, HEALTH LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
U.S. ex rel Marlar v. BWXT Y-12, LLC, No. 07-6051
In an action alleging violation of the the False Claims Act and discharge in retaliation for whistleblowing, dismissal of the fraud complaint is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the procedures used to defraud the government; and 2) plaintiff failed to allege facts regarding a false claim presented to the government. However, dismissal of the retaliation claim is reversed and remanded where plaintiff provided sufficient information regarding the retaliatory nature of her discharge. Read more...

IMMIGRATION LAW
Ukpabi v. Mukasey, No. 06-4028
Denial of a motion for a continuance in a removal proceeding is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence that an IJ abused her discretion in denying the motion; 2) there was no violation of international law; and 3) there is no due process right to a continuance while a pending visa petition is fully adjudicated. Read more...


You are currently subscribed to 6th-caselaw as: kallyorama@gmail.com .
To manage your newsletter accounts go to: http://newsletters.findlaw.com/nl/sub/review-account.jsp
or to ***, send a blank email to leave-3724561-1395327.22efdb22eed78aa58ec722eea034bb15@info.legalminds.org