Business
[12/08] Ahead of the Bell: Interpublic Group
[12/08] Xilinx raises 3Q sales outlook as demand improves
[12/08] TheStreet.com sets 2.5-cent quarterly dividend
More...

Top Headlines
[12/08] Sotomayor delivers first court opinion of new term
[12/08] Court skeptical of federal anti-fraud law
[12/08] $7M awarded to victim's family in Ky. plane crash
More...

Government Contracts

[12/07] States Roofing Corp. v. Winter
In plaintiff's suit against the Navy brought under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denying plaintiff's claim for additional costs incurred in connection with its contract to perform roofing work at a Naval facility is reversed and remanded as plaintiff's interpretation of the contract as requiring waterproofing paint of the parapet walls was within the zone of reasonableness, and plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the additional costs incurred.
More...

Intellectual Property

[12/04] Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acceleron LLC
In a suit brought by HP against Acceleron, a patent holding company, seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of a patent related to Blade Servers, grant of defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction is reversed where there is a definite and concrete dispute between HP and Acceleron with adverse legal interests as the facts of the case, when viewed objectively and in totality, show that defendant took the affirmative step of twice contacting HP directly, making an implied assertion of its rights under the patent against HP's Blade Server products, and HP disagreed.
More...

Labor & Employment Law

[12/08] Patterson v. Indiana Newspapers, Inc.
In plaintiffs' suit against their former employer alleging employment discrimination on the basis of their religious belief that homosexual conduct is sinful and other claims, summary judgment in favor of the employer is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff cannot show that she met the newspaper's legitimate performance expectations or that a similarly situated employee who did not share her religious beliefs was treated more favorably; 2) the other plaintiff's discrimination case based on religion, race, and age, and his retaliations claim, also failed because he could not show that he was meeting the employer's legitimate performance expectations; and 3) district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress as, under the "modified impact" version of the tort, there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim.
More...