<img src="//bat.bing.com/action/0?ti=5189112&amp;Ver=2" height="0" width="0" style="display:none; visibility: hidden;">

    The Lawletter Blog

    Paul A. Ferrer

    Recent Posts

    CIVIL PROCEDURE: Right to Appeal Dismissal of Case Consolidated for Pretrial Proceedings in Multidistrict Litigation

    Posted by Paul A. Ferrer on Fri, Aug 28, 2015 @ 12:08 PM

    The Lawletter Vol 40 No 7

    Paul Ferrer, Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

         Federal law permits "civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact" that are pending in different districts to be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation ("MDL"). 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). Another federal statute grants an unsuccessful litigant in a federal district court the right to take an appeal, as a matter of right, from a "final decision" of the district court. Id. § 1291. In Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897 (2015), the Supreme Court decided the question of whether the right to appeal secured by § 1291 is affected when a case is consolidated for MDL pretrial proceedings under § 1407.

    Read More

    Topics: Paul A. Ferrer, civil procedure, The Lawletter Vol 40 No 7

    ANTITRUST: Supreme Court Provides Guidance on Active-Supervision Prong of State-Action Immunity Test

    Posted by Paul A. Ferrer on Mon, May 11, 2015 @ 13:05 PM

    The Lawletter Vol 40 No 3

    Paul Ferrer, Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

         The U.S. Supreme Court continues to refine the state-action immunity doctrine first formulated in Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943). In Parker, relying on principles of federalism and state sovereignty, the Court refused to construe the Sherman Act, which prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade, see 15 U.S.C. § 1, as applying to the anticompetitive conduct of a state acting through its legislature. Rather, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sherman Act was intended to prohibit private restraints on trade, and it refused to infer an intent to "nullify a state's control over its officers and agents" in activities directed by the legislature. Parker, 317 U.S. at 351.

    Read More

    Topics: active supervision of nonsovereign actor, antitrust, state-action immunity

    New Call-to-action
    Free Hour of Legal Research  for New Clients
    Seven ways outsourcing your legal research can empower your practice

    Subscribe to The Lawletter

    Latest Posts