United States: Trials & Appeals & Compensation

In this episode of the SideBar Advisors podcast, Duane Morris Partner, Seth Rokosky, shares how legal paths actually unfolded in real life—through a series of decisions, tradeoffs, and adjustments.

Courts are increasingly imposing severe sanctions on attorneys who misuse artificial intelligence in legal work, with cases resulting in millions in additional damages and thousands in fines.

On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected a plea to decide a critical question regarding the Price-Anderson Act (the PAA), the federal statute that governs suits stemming from public radiation exposure from nuclear facilities. Last year, in Mazzocchio v. Cotter Corp. the Eighth Circuit held that plaintiffs in nuclear public liability suits may rely on state-law tort standards of care rather than upon the federal nuclear-safety regulations that five other courts of appeal have held provide the exclusive standard of care in such cases.

The Texas Business Court continues to shape commercial law in the Lone Star State, offering guidance on contract interpretation and enforcement.

The Defend Trade Secrets Act celebrates its tenth anniversary, marking a decade of federal trade secret protection that has fundamentally transformed how companies safeguard their confidential information. From near-unanimous bipartisan support to substantial jury verdicts exceeding $700 million, the DTSA has generated thousands of cases and established critical legal precedents.

This episode of Ask the Expert, part of AIMA’s focused series on key regulatory topics, explores the rapidly evolving enforcement landscape surrounding prediction markets.

Just when the conventional wisdom seemed to be that the CFPB was no longer going to assert that it could not request funding from the Federal Reserve because of combined losses at the Federal Reserve Banks...

On April 6, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an attorney does not violate Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure (“C.R.C.P.”) 11(a) merely by copying information, including allegations, from complaints in lawsuits involving some of the same defendants, as long as the attorney conducts “a sufficient investigation to support the allegations contained in the complaint, at least on information and belief.” The court cautioned, however, that the sufficiency of that investigation is highly fact dependent.

On April 6, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court held in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Co., LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, 2026 CO 19, that subcontractors on public projects may seek recovery of disputed or unliquidated amounts—including delay and disruption damages—in verified statements of claim under the Public Works Act. The Court also clarified that the penalty for filing an excessive claim is forfeiture of statutory remedies only, leaving common law claims available.