United States Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

United States Case Law

  • 21 May 2026

    M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension

    Citation
    M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension
    Court
    Supreme Court of the United States
    Case number
    23-1209

    ERISA §§1391 and 1393 do not require actuarial assumptions to be selected on or before the measurement date; the 'as of' language fixes factual inputs as of the measurement date but does not freeze methodological tools, and §1393’s requirement of reasonable, best-estimate assumptions supports permitting actuaries to select assumptions after the measurement date so long as they are reasonable and reflect the actuary’s best estimate.

    • Withdrawal liability
    • Actuarial assumptions
    • Measurement date
    • Retroactivity
    • Arbitration

  • 21 May 2026

    Hamm v. Smith

    Citation
    Hamm v. Smith
    Court
    Supreme Court of the United States
    Case number
    24-872

    The Court dismissed certiorari as improvidently granted because the record and litigation posture did not permit the Court to announce a mandatory method for aggregating multiple IQ scores; lower courts may continue to assess multiple IQ scores holistically—considering scores with their confidence intervals, relevant expert testimony, and adaptive-functioning evidence—consistent with Hall and Moore, but no singular constitutional aggregation formula is prescribed on this record.

    • Atkins analysis
    • Multiple iq scores
    • Standard error of measurement
    • Confidence intervals
    • Expert testimony
    • State definition of intellectual disability

  • 21 May 2026

    Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

    Citation
    Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
    Court
    Supreme Court of the United States
    Case number
    24-983

    Under the plain text of Title III, 'property which was confiscated' can refer to the physical property in which the plaintiff had an interest when the Cuban Government seized control; Havana Docks established that Cuba confiscated the docks in 1960 and that the cruise lines knowingly and intentionally used those confiscated docks without authorization, so the cruise lines may be liable under Title III and the Eleventh Circuit's counterfactual requirement was erroneous.

    • Cuban liberty and democratic solidarity act (title iii)
    • Confiscation
    • Trafficking in confiscated property
    • Foreign claims settlement commission certification
    • Counterfactual analysis
    • Due process concerns

  • 18 May 2026

    Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.P.A

    Citation
    Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.P.A
    Court
    Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Case number
    24-3005

    Shaffer's thirty-sixth footnote authorizes the exercise of traditional quasi in rem (attachment) jurisdiction, without imposing International Shoe minimum-contacts in the enforcement context, to realize on an already adjudicated debt (including a foreign arbitral award) against property located in the forum; the district court erred by dismissing without first resolving whether Webuild is the successor in interest to the award debtor

    • Quasi in rem jurisdiction
    • Personal jurisdiction (minimum contacts)
    • Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards
    • New york convention
    • Successor in interest

  • 11 May 2026

    Mist Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Berkley Insurance Company

    Citation
    Mist Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Berkley Insurance Company
    Court
    Supreme Court of New Jersey
    Case number
    A-34-24

    The capacity exclusion is analogous to the Norman International disjunctive exclusion and, as written, applies without requiring a causal nexus; the underlying complaints allege wrongful acts by the insured person in his capacity with multiple uninsured entities and therefore fall within the exclusion; Berkley repeatedly and expressly reserved its rights and did not act in bad faith, so forfeiture or estoppel doctrines do not bar Berkley from invoking the exclusion and refusing to contribute to the settlement.

    • Capacity exclusion
    • Reservation of rights
    • Duty to defend
    • Duty to indemnify
    • Consent to settlement
    • Forfeiture

  • 29 Apr 2026

    First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport

    Citation
    First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport
    Court
    Supreme Court of the United States
    Case number
    24-781

    The issuance of a subpoena by a state attorney general demanding private donor information inflicted a present, concrete injury on First Choice’s First Amendment freedom of association sufficient for Article III standing; the non-self-executing nature of the subpoena, partial exemptions, or assurances of confidentiality do not eliminate the objectively reasonable chill and therefore do not bar federal pre-enforcement review under §1983.

    • Freedom of association
    • Donor disclosure
    • Pre-enforcement review
    • Article iii standing
    • Subpoena enforcement
    • State investigation

  • 29 Apr 2026

    Louisiana v. Callais

    Citation
    Louisiana v. Callais
    Court
    Supreme Court of the United States
    Case number
    24-109

    Because a proper construction of Section 2 did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority‑Black district, compliance with Section 2 could not provide a compelling interest to justify the State’s race‑based drawing of SB8; Louisiana configured District 6 for racial reasons to comply with Robinson and thus triggered strict scrutiny, and the State failed to show a compelling, narrowly tailored justification; therefore SB8 is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and the district court judgment is affirmed.

    • Racial gerrymandering
    • Section 2 voting rights act
    • Equal protection clause
    • Fifteenth amendment enforcement
    • Gingles framework
    • Strict scrutiny

  • 28 Apr 2026

    Evergreen Shipping Agency (America) Corp. v. FMC

    Citation
    Evergreen Shipping Agency (America) Corp. v. FMC
    Court
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Case number
    25-1104

    The petition for review is denied because FMC's Order on Remand that detention charges for May 23-25 were unreasonable is supported by substantial evidence and consistent with 46 C.F.R. § 545.5: given Evergreen's concessions that Yamaha's plant closure prevented earlier pickup, the port gates were closed, and Evergreen suffered no costs, detention charges could not have promoted freight fluidity nor served a compensatory purpose.

    • Detention charges
    • Demurrage and detention
    • Reasonableness under shipping act
    • Interpretive rule 46 c.f.r. § 545.5
    • Freight fluidity
    • Arbitrary and capricious review

  • 22 Apr 2026

    Hencely v. Fluor Corp.

    Citation
    Hencely v. Fluor Corp.
    Court
    Supreme Court of the United States
    Case number
    24-924

    State-law tort claims against a military contractor operating under military command are not categorically preempted where the Federal Government neither ordered nor authorized the challenged conduct; neither the Constitution nor federal statutes (including FTCA §2680(j)) expressly preempt the suit, Boyle does not justify blanket wartime preemption when the contractor allegedly departed from federal instructions, and Yearsley immunity is inapplicable where the contractor acted outside granted authority; therefore the Fourth Circuit's battlefield preemption rule is erroneous and the case is va…

    • Combatant-activities exception
    • Federal tort claims act
    • Boyle preemption test
    • Yearsley doctrine
    • Negligent supervision
    • Negligent entrustment

  • 20 Apr 2026

    ARC Global Investments II LLC v. Digital World Acquisition Corp.

    Citation
    ARC Global Investments II LLC v. Digital World Acquisition Corp.
    Court
    Supreme Court of Delaware
    Case number
    375, 2025

    The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Chancery for the reasons stated in the Court of Chancery's Memorandum Opinion dated September 16, 2024 and Letter Opinion dated July 14, 2025.

    • Appeal
    • Affirmance of lower court judgment
    • Court of chancery review