United States: Civil Law

The Mortgage Bankers Association has filed a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey's disparate impact discrimination rules, arguing they lack constitutional safeguards and conflict with federal law. The complaint asserts the rules impose unrecoverable compliance costs on lenders and create operational burdens by requiring different policies across states.

Article I, section 10 of the Washington State Constitution guarantees Washington residents access to the courts. That right does not mean that a person has unlimited access.

The Eleventh Circuit's reversal in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates addresses one of the most anticipated False Claims Act decisions in years, ruling that qui tam provisions do not violate the Appointments Clause. While this decision aligns with other circuit courts, it leaves critical constitutional questions unresolved, including Take Care and Vesting Clause challenges that could reshape FCA litigation.

A Texas Business Court examines the boundaries of derived judicial immunity for court-appointed receivers and the entities they create, addressing whether immunity survives appellate reversal and extends beyond the receiver personally. The decision clarifies when post-closing litigation against receivers may be barred and what parties must plead to overcome immunity defenses.

A federal district court dismissed a securities fraud class action against a food safety company and its executives, finding that challenged statements about post-acquisition integration progress were either not materially false, constituted protected forward-looking statements or puffery, or lacked sufficient allegations of scienter. The court's analysis examined statements across three integration areas—CRM systems, ERP implementation, and manufacturing—and determined that repeated public disc

Georgia slip-and-fall cases hinge on evidence preserved immediately after an incident, not injury severity. This analysis examines the four critical categories of proof that determine whether premises...

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently addressed whether manufacturers can be held liable under consumer protection laws for failing to disclose potential product defects that manifest after purchase. In Halpern v. Ricoh, U.S.A., Inc., the Court examined whether a vendor's silence about a latent defect constitutes "deceptive conduct" under Pennsylvania's catch-all consumer protection provision, establishing important boundaries for when disclosure duties arise in product liability cases.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that ERISA preempts state defamation claims against employee benefit plans. The decision arose from a case where a doctor sued Cigna's subsidiary over explanation of benefits notices that allegedly damaged his reputation by stating claims were denied because services were provided by unlicensed healthcare providers.

On August 3, 2026, the Michigan Court of Appeals held in a published decision that a claim under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA) against the State of Michigan or one of its agencies is a claim for “personal injuries.”