RESULTS DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR OUTCOME.
Federal Courts of Appeals
Kinzel v. Bank, 850 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2017)
The Sixth Circuit affirmed a post-trial judgment for our client in a multi-million dollar breach of contract and bad faith case based on liquidation of collateral for a loan.
Greene v. Railroad Retirement Board, 15-2500 (4th Cir. 2017)
As counsel appointed by the Fourth Circuit, secured a settlement in which our client received the entire amount in controversy, after briefing and argument.
United States ex rel. Ladas v. Exelis, Inc., 824 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 2016)
The Second Circuit adopted, as a matter of first impression, a new test under which a potential relator can enforceably release his right to bring False Claims Act claims against his former employer. It also held that the relator had failed to plausibly plead fraud against our client in a suit arising out of a high-dollar Government contract.
Reloaded Games, Inc. v. Parallel Networks, 639 F. Appx. 640 (Mem.) (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB decision upholding our client’s patent against a challenge based on prior art.
Barker v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 622 F. Appx. 894 (11th Cir. 2015)
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment in our client’s favor in multi-district litigation bringing claims under the Truth in Lending Act and Virginia law.
In re A.L.C. and E.R.S.C. (Carlwig v. Carlwig), 783 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2015), op. at 607 F. Appx. 658 (9th Cir. 2015)
As appointed counsel, secured an order vacating in part the district court’s opinion as to the habitual residence of an infant under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
United States ex rel. Ahumada v. NISH, et al., 756 F.3d 268 (4th Cir. 2014)
The Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a False Claims Act case against our client and others based on the public disclosure bar and pleading rules.
In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Under Seal), No. ___, (4th Cir. 2014)
In an expedited appeal of a case largely under seal, after full briefing the federal court of appeals preserved our client’s privacy interest by accepting our contention that appellate jurisdiction was lacking.
Cruz v. T.D. Bank, N.A., 742 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2013) and Cruz v. T.D. Bank, N.A., 22 N.Y.3d 61 (N.Y. 2013)
The New York Court of Appeals ruled, on certified question, in our client’s favor that New York law governing freezing debtors’ bank accounts carried no implied private right of action against banks.
Wolf v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 512 Fed. Appx. 336 (4th Cir. 2013)
Virginia Supreme Court
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a TILA claim brought against our client.
Shareholder Rep. Servs., LLC v. Airbus Americas, Inc. 292 Va. 682 (2016)
The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled, in our client’s favor, that a $13 million verdict should be cut down to the escrow cap of $5 million after a merger.
Dye v. CNX Gas Co., 291 Va. 319 (2016)
The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled, in our client’s favor, that under Virginia law natural gas qualifies as a “mineral” under mineral severance deeds dating to the late 1800s.
Dunlap v. Cottman Transmission Systems, Inc., 287 Va. 207 (2014)
The Supreme Court of Virginia answered two certified questions about Virginia’s business tort conspiracy statute wholly in our client’s favor.
Board of Supervisors of Fluvanna County v. Davenport & Co., LLC, 285 Va. 580 (2013)
U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled on a constitutional issue of first impression regarding the nature of immunity for members of local government bodies.
Missouri ex rel. KCP&L v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 13-787 (U.S., cert. denied, 2014)
(briefed at petition stage) Secured a call for the views of the Solicitor General (CVSG) on a certiorari petition from a decision of the intermediate Missouri appellate court. Petition of the Day on Scotusblog. Petition: 2013 WL 690477.
Plumley v. Austin, 135 S.Ct. 828 (2015)
(dissent from the denial of certiorari) (briefed as amicus supporting certiorari) Represented retired federal judges urging the Court to grant certiorari of a Fourth Circuit decision expanding the presumption of judicial vindictiveness. The case was Petition of the Day on Scotusblog, November 18, 2014. The Court denied certiorari over a widely publicized dissent from Justices Thomas and Scalia, which embraced the amicus arguments. Amicus brief at 2014 WL 5077242.
Brown v. Columbia Gas Transmission Co., 14-913 (cert. denied, 2015)
(briefed at petition stage) Drafted a brief in opposition after the Court called for a response, and secured a denial of certiorari. Brief in Opposition at 2015 WL 1478008.
Burwell et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751 (2014)
(briefed as amicus) Represented 15 members of the U.S. Congress in an amicus brief describing the purpose of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and urging that the contraceptives mandate violated the “super-statute” RFRA. The Supreme Court struck down the contraceptives mandate. Amicus brief at 2014 WL 333886.
McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S.Ct. 2518 (2014)
(briefed as amicus) Represented 7 distinguished law professors addressing the freedom of speech in the abortion context, contending that the Massachusetts buffer zone violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional. Amicus brief at 2013 WL 5274831.
Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853 (2015)
(briefed as amicus) Represented 5 reformed prisoners informing the Court of the beneficial impact of religious freedom and practice in prison. Amicus brief at 2014 WL 2506631.
Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S.Ct. 1759 (2015)
(briefed as amicus) Represented 33 professors discussing the purposes and intended and unintended effects of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Amicus brief at 2014 WL 7205509.
Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S.Ct. 1557 (2016)
(briefed as amicus supporting certiorari, and in support of petitioners) Represented law professors arguing that the contraception mandate commandeers nuns’ healthcare plans by including contraception even though the government pays for it, and that this imposition burdens the free exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Amicus brief available at 2015 WL 5117957.