Spencer Fane LLP Logo

Publications

Your publication search results are below.  Please click the title link to read the full content of the item.

Federal Court Halts EPA’s Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule in 11 States

On June 11, 2018, the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Georgia issued a preliminary injunction preventing implementation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2015 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule in 11 states including Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.  The court held that if the WOTUS rule became effective the states would suffer irreparable harm in both a “loss of sovereignty and unrecoverable monetary losses.” 

The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision – Bakery Owner Wins, But on Narrow Grounds

On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its highly anticipated decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Case No. 16-111. In its opinion, found here, the Court vacated an administrative order entered by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (“CCRC” or the “Commission”) against the bakery, which had refused to sell custom wedding cakes to same-sex couples on the grounds that doing so would violate the owner’s sincerely held religious beliefs. The Court made it clear that judges and administrative officials violate a litigant’s constitutional rights if they engage in conduct that displays hostility toward a particular set of religious beliefs. But the majority opinion left many questions unanswered. It remains to be seen if a business owner may refuse to do business with a prospective customer because of the customer’s sexual orientation when the refusal is based on a sincerely held religious belief.

The Responsibility of Regulation Relief Within the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act

Matt outlines the potential risks and benefits of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act., which was introduced by a bi-partisan group of 23 senators with the primary intent of reducing regulatory burdens for smaller financial institutions. Published in The Show-Me Banker and In Touch.

“As Is” Clause Held to Preclude Claim Arising From Seller’s Oral Representations That Damaged Parts on an Aircraft Were Repairable

The significance of “as is” language in an aircraft sales agreement is demonstrated again in a recent decision of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  In Red River Aircraft Leasing, LLC v. JetBrokers, Inc., the aircraft buyer had learned of hail damage to an aircraft during the course of negotiations, but was assured by the seller that the damaged parts were repairable.  Of course, after taking possession of the aircraft, the buyer learned that the parts in question were not repairable, and proceeded to sue the seller on a theory of negligent misspresentation.  The Federal Court, however, ruled that because the buyer had accepted the aircraft “as is” and “with all faults” in its purchase agreement, it would be unable to establish that it relied on the seller’s statement in buying the aircraft.  The court therefore entered a summary judgment for the seller, leaving the buyer without a remedy.

Insurance Benefits – Unreasonable Delay and Denial. Supreme Court of Colorado Decides Three Cases Against Insurance Companies.

In a trio of case opinions issued on May 29, 2018, – all written by Chief Justice Nancy Rice who will retire in June – the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against the arguments of insurance companies. 

Federal Appellate Court Decision Highlights Importance of “Firestone” Language

In a recent decision, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resolved an important question in a way that should put administrators of ERISA plans in a far stronger position vis-à-vis claimants who disagree with the administrators’ plan interpretations.  Essentially, the court in Clemons v. Norton Healthcare Retirement Plan held that the contract-interpretation doctrine of “contra proferentum” has no application once a court has determined that a plan document grants the administrator the type of broad discretion approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1989 Firestone decision.

Employee Class Action Waivers Held Enforceable

On May 21st, the United States Supreme Court held that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not prohibit employers from requiring workers to agree, as a term and condition of their employment, that they waive the right to bring class or collective actions, and will individually arbitrate employment-related legal claims.  Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, U.S., Case No. 16-285 (Slip Opinion, May 21, 2018). This decision resolves a high profile conflict, in which the National Labor Relations Board and some federal courts had found that the NLRA prohibits enforcement of arbitration agreements containing class action waivers. The Court’s decision makes clear that the NLRA does not prevent the enforcement of an arbitration agreement that is otherwise valid under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). 

Health Plans’ Anti-Assignment Clauses Upheld by Two More Federal Appellate Courts

Over the past two months, the United States Court of Appeals for both the Ninth Circuit and the Third Circuit have upheld “anti-assignment” clauses in ERISA-governed health plan documents.  These holdings – which adopt the same position previously taken by the First, Second, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh circuits – are a blow to healthcare providers that attempt to bring suits against employer-sponsored health plans (or the insurance companies funding benefits under those plans) as “assignees” of individual plan participants. 

NLRB Restored to Employer-Friendly Three Republican/ Two Democrat Composition

Relief for employers under the Trump Administration continues, following the U.S. Senate’s narrow confirmation of John Ring, former Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP attorney, to the National Labor Relations Board on April 11, 2018.  The 50-48 Senate vote returned the five-member board to an employer-friendly composition of three Republicans and two Democrats and alleviates the log jam of the 2-2 split created when Board Member Phillip Miscimarra stepped down. On April 13, Ring became Chair of the Board, replacing Marvin Kaplan as Chair. Kaplan remains a member of the Board. 

Loosened Maximum Distance Requirements for APRNs in Missouri

Effective Thursday, April 26, the Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (MBHA) and the Missouri Board of Nursing (MBN) loosened the regulatory requirements which dictate the maximum distance between the location at which an Advance Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) practices and the location at which his/her collaborating physician practices.

1 2 3 136 Showing 1-10 of 1354 results View All