To update our earlier post on this case: The Court took no action on Elmbrook School District’s cert petition in its April 15, 2013 order. The case has been relisted for the April 19, 2013 conference. You can access the Court’s docket for the case here. If the Court decides the petition this time, it will issue its decision on an Orders List released on the following Monday around 8:30 a.m. Central Time.
During its conference this Friday, April 12, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to consider Elmbrook School District’s petition for a writ of certiorari seeking reversal of a decision issued last summer by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Doe v. Elmbrook School District, 687 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2012).Continue reading this entry
With the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari on November 26, 2012, in Del Marcelle v. Brown County Corp., No. 12-367, the Seventh Circuit’s inability to resolve the standard by which class-of-one equal-protection claims should be assessed will likely persist for some time. The Seventh Circuit had heard the case en banc to resolve the conflicted case law, hoping to determine whether a class-of-one claim requires pleading malicious or wrongful motivation and to agree on an improved standard, but the en banc court failed in its quest, affirming by an evenly divided court. 680 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2012).
The Seventh Circuit recently made clear that a district court’s duty to rule on the admissibility of expert testimony requires a meaningful examination into whether a proffered expert’s analysis is methodologically sound. After reversing the plaintiff’s jury verdict as legally deficient, the court in ATA Airlines, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp. addressed the jury’s damages award, ruling that it was based on a fundamentally flawed regression analysis.
It will be impossible ever to think of Gonzalez-Servin v. Ford Motor Co., No. 11-1665 (7th Cir., Nov. 23, 2011), as anything but “the ostrich case,” chiefly because the court includes in its opinion full color pictures of an ostrich with its head in the sand and a lawyer imitating the bird.
The Seventh Circuit issued a decision today that has some significance for any of us interested in appeals from decisions of multi-district litigation transferee courts.
Further illustrating the increased difficulty in pleading potentially burdensome civil claims after Twombly and Iqbal, the Seventh Circuit reversed on interlocutory appeal a plaintiff’s claim that a conspiracy to fix potash prices outside the United States violated federal antitrust law because it influenced the price of potash sold inside the United States. Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium Inc., slip op., No. 10-1712 (Sept. 23, 2011). At issue was whether the claim was barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA), 15 U.S.C. §6a, which in general bars the application of U.S. antitrust laws to agreements affecting only foreign commerce, but exempts from the bar foreign anticompetitive conduct that either affects U.S. import commerce or “has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on U.S. domestic or import commerce.
Show v. Ford Motor Co., slip op., Nos. 10-2428 & 10-2637 (Sep. 19, 2011), issued recently by the Seventh Circuit, provided Chief Judge Easterbrook with the opportunity to explore the question whether the need for expert testimony is one of substantive or procedural law, so that in a diversity case the court should follow state or federal law.