THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and discuss First Amendment commercial speech doctrine. * * * "The States and the Federal Government are free to prevent the dissemination of commercial speech that is false, deceptive, or misleading, or that proposes an illegal transaction. Commercial speech that is not false or deceptive and does not concern unlawful activities, however, may be restricted only in the service of a substantial governmental interest, and only through means that directly advance that interest." Id. at 638, 105 S.Ct. 2265 (citing Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 566, 100 S.Ct. 2343) (other internal citations omitted).The regulation of commercial speech is subject to different levels of review, depending on the nature of the law. In Central Hudson, the Court established that a restriction on commercial speech is subject to intermediate scrutiny, that is, a determination of whether the restriction directly advances a substantial governmental interest and is not overly restrictive. 447 U.S. at 564, 100 S.Ct. 2343. In Zauderer, however, the Court created an exception that an informational disclosure law-- as opposed to a prohibition on speech-- was subject to rational review, that is, a determination of whether the required disclosure is reasonably related to the state's interest. 471 U.S. at 651, 105 S.Ct. 2265. Safelite Group, Inc. v. Jepsen, 764 F. 3d 258 (2nd Cir. 2014).

Commercial Speech and the First Amendment

Publications, LandMark

Rules & Procedures

Independently published

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. * * * The FCRA provides for civil liability in 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o. Whether the violation was willful or negligent dictates the type of damages awarded. If a violation is willful, the defendant is subject to punitive damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. However, if a plaintiff fails to show that the violations are willful, a defendant will only be held liable for the plaintiff's actual damages. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681o. If a plaintiff fails to demonstrate willfulness and actual damages, the claim must fail. According to section 1681n, a defendant commits a willful violation and is subject to punitive damages only if it engages in "willful misrepresentations or concealments." 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2); see also Stevenson v. TRW, Inc., 987 F.2d 288, 294 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Pinner v. Schmidt, 805 F.2d 1258, 1263 (5th Cir. 1986)). Noncompliance is considered willful when the defendant "knowingly and intentionally committed an act in conscious disregard for the rights of others." Pinner, 805 F.2d at 1263. A failure to adequately investigate and swiftly correct inaccurate information generally does not constitute a willful violation. See id. at 1262-63. Cameron v. Greater New Orleans Federal Credit Union, (5th Cir. 2018)

Fair Credit Reporting Act

Business

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply provisions of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Volume 1 of the casebook covers the District of Columbia Circuit and the First through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a general rule, the United States is immune from claims for money damages in civil suits. See Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 686-90, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949). The FTCA waives the United States' sovereign immunity for civil suits for money damages "for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Where the FTCA's waiver is operative, the government is liable in tort "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances." Id. § 2674. However, this broad waiver of sovereign immunity is cabined by a list of exceptions. See id. § 2680. [T]he FTCA's waiver does not apply to "[a]ny claim ... based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused." Id. § 2680(a). The exceptions to the FTCA's immunity waiver work to defeat the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. United States, 569 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). Thus, the burden is on the plaintiff in such a civil suit to establish "that the discretionary function exception does not foreclose their claim." Seaside Farm, Inc. v. United States, 842 F.3d 853, 857 (4th Cir. 2016). This exception represents one limit to the extent of "Congress' willingness to impose tort liability upon the United States." United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 808, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984). It exists to prevent interference by the judiciary in the policy-laden balancing that accompanies the exercise of executive discretion. See Baum v. United States, 986 F.2d 716, 720 (4th Cir. 1993); Tiffany v. United States, 931 F.2d 271, 276 (4th Cir. 1991). Most importantly, the exception protects that "discretion of the executive ... to act according to [his] judgment of the best course, a concept of substantial historical ancestry in American law." Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 34, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1953). Taken together, these considerations make manifest the important separation-of-powers principles that animate the discretionary function exception. See Holbrook v. United States, 673 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir. 2012). Blanco Ayala v. United States, 982 F. 3d 209 (4th Cir. 2020)

Federal Tort Claims Act: Volume 1 (Litigator)

Landmark Publications

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Volume 1 covers the District of Columbia Circuit and the First through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. * * * Congress enacted the FDCPA in 1977 "to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors" and "to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged." 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). It provides a private right of action against debt collectors who violate its provisions. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k; see also Brown v. Card Serv. Ctr., 464 F.3d 450, 453 (3d Cir. 2006). "As remedial legislation, the FDCPA must be broadly construed in order to give full effect to these purposes." Caprio v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., LLC, 709 F.3d 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2013)."To prevail on an FDCPA claim, a plaintiff must prove that (1) she is a consumer, (2) the defendant is a debt collector, (3) the defendant's challenged practice involves an attempt to collect a 'debt' as the [FDCPA] defines it, and (4) the defendant has violated a provision of the FDCPA in attempting to collect the debt." St. Pierre v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., 898 F.3d 351, 358 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing, 765 F.3d 299, 303 (3d Cir. 2014)). [. . .][T]he statute defines "debt collector" as any person (1) "who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts" (the "principal purpose" definition), or (2) "who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another" (the "regularly collects" definition). 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). The statute thus provides two separate paths to establishing an entity's status as a "debt collector." See Henson, 137 S.Ct. at 1721.Barbato v. Greystone Alliance, LLC, 916 F. 3d 260 (3rd Cir. 2019)

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: Volume 1

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel. * * * "Collateral estoppel, sometimes called issue preclusion, bars parties from re-litigating issues of either fact or law that were adjudicated in an earlier proceeding" before a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction. Robb Evans & Assocs., LLC v. United States, 850 F.3d 24, 31 (1st Cir. 2017); see Ramallo Bros. Printing, Inc. v. El Día, Inc., 490 F.3d 86, 89 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting S. Pac. R.R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 48 (1897)). The doctrine serves the "dual purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation." Sutliffe v. Epping Sch. Dist., 584 F.3d 314, 329 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 (1979)). As "issue preclusion prevent[s] relitigation of wrong decisions just as much as right ones," a court charged with applying collateral estoppel ought not inquire into the correctness of the earlier determination of a precluded issue. Vargas-Colón v. Fundación Damas, Inc., 864 F.3d 14, 29 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293, 1308 (2015)) (alteration in original). Patton v. Johnson, (1st Cir. 2019)

Collateral Estoppel

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss issues surrounding patent claim construction. * * * The purpose of claim construction is to give claim terms the meaning understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). "There is a heavy presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning." Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013). "Properly viewed, the 'ordinary meaning' of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321. A patent's prosecution history, though generally "'less useful for claim construction purposes' than the claim language and written description, plays various roles in resolving uncertainties about claim scope." SAS Inst., Inc. v. ComplementSoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317). We have recognized that "the prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F. 3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Patent Claim Construction

Intellectual Property

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply the doctrine of Article III Standing. * * * To establish its Article III standing, [a plaintiff] must satisfy three requirements. First, it "must have suffered an injury in fact--an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Second, "there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of--the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant."Id. (alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Third, "it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision."Id. at 561 (internal quotation marks omitted). * * * Each element of standing is "an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case" and "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." Id. "While the proof required to establish standing increases as the suit proceeds, the standing inquiry remains focused on whether the party invoking jurisdiction had the requisite stake in the outcome when the suit was filed." Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008) (citation omitted). * * * To satisfy its burden at the pleading stage, a plaintiff must "clearly allege facts demonstrating each element," Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (alteration adopted) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and we evaluate standing on a motion to dismiss based on the facts alleged in the complaint, Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1335 (11th Cir. 2013). To adequately allege injury in fact, it is not enough that a complaint "'sets forth facts from which we could imagine an injury sufficient to satisfy Article III's standing requirements,' since 'we should not speculate concerning the existence of standing, nor should we imagine or piece together an injury sufficient to give plaintiff standing when it has demonstrated none.'" Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 976 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Fla. State Athletic Comm'n, 226 F.3d 1226, 1229-30 (11th Cir. 2000)). "If the plaintiff fails to meet its burden, this court lacks the power to create jurisdiction by embellishing a deficient allegation of injury." Id. Aaron Private Clinic Management LLC v. Berry, (11th Cir. 2019)

Article III Standing

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. * * * The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-21, establishes a framework under which tribes may conduct gambling on land held in trust for their use. Some kinds of gambling may be conducted by every tribe, in every state, without prior approval. But class III gambling, which includes slot machines and table games such as blackjack, may be offered only in states that allow at least some non-Indian groups to conduct similar gambling, and then only if tribe and state enter into a compact or contract covering the operation. 25 U.S.C. §2710. Both a federal commission (the National Indian Gaming Commission) and the federal judiciary oversee this process. See generally Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014). Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of Wisconsin, (7th Cir. 2019)

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

Administrative Law

THE PRINT EDITION OF THE CASEBOOK contains a selection of the most recent indexed and paginated decisions of the official reporter. The decisions analyze and discuss municipal liability under 42 USC Section 1983 pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services. The selection of decisions spans from 2014 to the date of publication. In Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), the Supreme Court held that a municipality may not be held liable for a § 1983 violation under a theory of respondeat superior for the actions of its subordinates. In order to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that a "policy or custom" led to the plaintiff's injury. Id. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. The Court has further required that the plaintiff demonstrate that the policy or custom of a municipality "reflects deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its inhabitants." City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 392, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F. 3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court has strongly suggested that the deliberate indifference standard for municipalities is always an objective inquiry. In City of Canton, which concerned a Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to train, the Court held that a municipality was deliberately indifferent when "the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need." Id. at 390, 109 S.Ct. 1197. The Court articulated a standard permitting liability on a showing of notice: "Where a § 1983 plaintiff can establish that the facts available to city policymakers put them on actual or constructive notice that the particular omission is substantially certain to result in the violation of the constitutional rights of their citizens, the dictates of Monell are satisfied." Id. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1197 (emphasis added). Castro v. County of Los Angeles, ibid.

Municipal Liability Under 42 USC Section 1983

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of decisions from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that analyze and discuss issues surrounding patent claim construction. The selection of decisions spans from 2014 to the date of publication. Claim construction begins with the words of the claim, which "must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-15 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996). Although courts are permitted to consider extrinsic evidence, like expert testimony, such evidence is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citing C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed.Cir.2004)). Extrinsic evidence may not be used "to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence." Id. at 1324. Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 811 F. 3d 455 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Our claim construction analysis begins with the language of the claim itself, as it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc). The claims "must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Id. at 1315 (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc)). Indeed, we have said that the specification "is always highly relevant p.1340 to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996). Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., 811 F. 3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). . . .

Legal Theory & Systems

See the best price to sell, buy, or rent books by Publications, LandMark. BookScouter helps to compare book prices from 25+ online bookstores and 30+ buyback vendors with a single search.

Books by Publications, LandMark

See the best price to sell, buy, or rent books by Publications, LandMark. BookScouter helps to compare book prices from 25+ online bookstores and 30+ buyback vendors with a single search.

Commercial Speech and the First Amendment

Fair Credit Reporting Act

Federal Tort Claims Act: Volume 1 (Litigator)

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: Volume 1

Collateral Estoppel

Patent Claim Construction

Article III Standing

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

Municipal Liability Under 42 USC Section 1983

Patent Claim Construction