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

May 15, 2008

Table of Contents

LATEST SUMMARIES

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONTRACTS, HEALTH LAW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, PATENT
• Medtronic, Inc. v. White

CIVIL PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM, TAX LAW
• US v. Wealth & Tax Advisory Servs., Inc.

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
• US v. W.R. Grace

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 PROCEDURE, CONTRACTS, HEALTH LAW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW, PATENT
Medtronic, Inc. v. White, No. 06-16229
In a contract dispute over ownership of a patent, a judgment resulting from a jury verdict in favor of defendant-doctor is reversed and remanded where both an agency jury instruction and a corroboration jury instruction were given in error, and each was prejudicial. Read more...

CIVIL PROCEDURE, PER CURIAM, TAX LAW
US v. Wealth & Tax Advisory Servs., Inc., No. 06-55915
In a tax case, an order denying the government's petition to enforce a summons issued by the IRS is reversed where: 1) a 29-page "draft opinion letter" sent by taxpayers' accountants to the taxpayers' tax lawyers, containing extensive legal authority and analysis of a complicated tax transaction, constituted a "memorandum"; and 2) thus, even though the letter was characterized as a "draft," it was nevertheless subject to disclosure pursuant to taxpayers' agreement to provide to the IRS "[a]ll opinions and memoranda that provide a legal analysis" of the transaction in question. Read more...

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE
US v. W.R. Grace, No. 06-30192
A U.S, Attorney's simple certification under 18 U.S.C. section 3731, that the government's interlocutory appeal in a pending criminal case is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence the district court suppressed or excluded is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding, is sufficient to establish the circuit court's jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal. Prior decisions to the contrary are overruled. Also, the district court in the case at hand had the authority to order pretrial disclosure by the government of its final list of witnesses and evidentiary documents and to exclude witnesses and evidence not timely disclosed in compliance with such orders. Read more...


You are currently subscribed to 9th-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-3740044-1395330.142742b52b59387d043a76a9cf820377@info.legalminds.org