Cases

23-222 Michel v. Yale University In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2023 (Argued: April 5, 2024 Decided: August 7, 2024) Docket No. 23-222 JONATHAN MICHEL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, *

Alvin W. Thompson, United States District Judge The plaintiffs, both individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries in Yale's 403(b) Retirement Account Plan (the "Plan"), claim that defendants Yale University ("Yale"), Michael A. Peel ("Peel"), Yale's Vice President of Human Resources during the class period, and the Retirement Plan Fiduciary Committee (the "Committee") violated the Employee Retirem

************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin- ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi- cially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical cor

WYNN, Circuit Judge, concurring: I. I concur in Judge Motz’s fíne opinion holding that the Anti-Injunction Act applies to this case. I therefore agree that it should be remanded to the district court for dismissal. I note that my distinguished colleague, after vigorously dissenting from the majority’s holding that the AIA applies, chose to exercise his prerogative to addre

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge MOTZ, Judge DAVIS, and Judge WYNN wrote the opinion. MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges: Liberty University and certain individuals (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action challenging two provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: the “individual mandate,” which requires individuals to purc

21-88-cv (L) Cunningham v. Cornell University UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2022 (Argued: October 19, 2022 Decided: November 14, 2023) Nos. 21-88-cv; 21-96-cv; 21-114-cv –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– CASEY CUNNINGHAM, CHARLES E. LANCE, STANLEY T. MARCUS, LYDIA PETTIS, AND J

25-1747 Becerra-Paez v. Syracuse University In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2025 (Argued: April 21, 2026 Decided: August 11, 2026) Docket No. 25-1747 DIEGO BECERRA-PAEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appell

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J. (dissenting). ¶ 138 At its core, academic freedom is a professional principle, not merely a legal construct.1 It embraces the academic freedom of the faculty as well as the academic freedom of the institution. "Academic freedom thrives not only on the independent and uninhibited exchange of ideas among teachers and students, but also ... on autonomous decisionmaking by the academ

2018 WI 88 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2017AP1240 COMPLETE TITLE: John McAdams, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marquette University, Defendant-Respondent. ON BYPASS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION FILED: July 6, 2018

LANDAU, J., concurring. This case presents the court with some very difficult issues involving not just the meaning of particular sections of the state constitution but also larger questions concerning the nature of constitutional interpretation itself and the role of stare decisis. In large part, it is a difficulty of the court’s own making. For decades, the court interpreted the constitution more o

Certiorari granted, November 26, 2012 Vacated by Supreme Court, November 26, 2012 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INCORPORATED,  a Virginia Nonprofit Corporation; MICHELE G. WADDELL; JOANNE V. MERRILL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and MARTHA A. NEAL; DAVID STEIN, M.D.; PAUSANIAS ALEXANDER; MARY T. BENDORF; DELEGATE KATHY BYRON; JEFF HELG

RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HAIGHT, Senior District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Roderick Jackson (herein “plaintiff’ or “Jackson”) is a black African-American who brings this civil rights action against his former employer, defendant Post University (“defendant,” “Post,” or “the University”), alleging in his complaint that on March 2, 2007

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INCORPORATED,  a Virginia Nonprofit Corporation; MICHELE G. WADDELL; JOANNE V. MERRILL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and MARTHA A. NEAL; DAVID STEIN, M.D.; PAUSANIAS ALEXANDER; MARY T. BENDORF; DELEGATE KATHY BYRON; JEFF HELGESON, Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY GEITHNER, Secretary of 

757 F.Supp.2d 144 (2010) ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. Sanford M. BOLTON, Hygrosol Pharmaceutical Corp., and Spiridon Spireas, Defendants. No. 08-CV-5039 (NGG)(JMA). United States District Court, E.D. New York. December 10, 2010. *152 Michael Joseph Keane, John E. Becker, Garfunkel Wild P.C., Great Neck, NY, for

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting. The question presented in this case is: “Whether a federal contractor university’s statutory right under the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U. S. C. §§200-212, in inventions arising from federally funded research can be terminated unilaterally by an individual inventor through a separate agreement purporting to assign the inventor’s rig

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Revised: October 1, 2009 2008-1509, -1510 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant- Appellant, and THOMAS MERIGAN and MAR

LINN, Circuit Judge. The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) appeals a final judgment that the asserted claims of U.S. Patents No. 5,968,730 (“'730 patent”), No. 6,503,705 (“'705 patent”), and No. 7,129,041 (“'041 patent”) are invalid for obviousness. Bd. of Trs. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 F.Supp.2d 1016 (N.D.Cal.20

NEWMAN, Associate Judge, concurring, with whom Associate Judges MACK, FER-REN and TERRY, join as to Part VI: I join the court’s conclusions that Georgetown University has violated the District of Columbia Human Rights Act by denying the tangible benefits associated with “University Recognition” to the student groups Gay People of Georgetown University (GPGU) and Gay Rights Coalition (GRC) on the prohibited gro

699 A.2d 531 (1997) 117 Md. App. 171 GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY v. The NATIONAL SOCIETY OF THE DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, et al. No. 1733, September Term, 1996. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. September 4, 1997. *533 Scott T. Kragie (Stephanie A. Goldfine and Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, on th

606 F.Supp. 1161 (1985) Lucy Peng-Fei CHANG v. UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND, et al. Diane R. SELEEN, et al. v. BOARD OF REGENTS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION OF RHODE ISLAND, et al. Sandra KRAYNEK v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION OF RHODE ISLAND, et al. Wendy ROWORTH v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION OF RHODE ISLAND, et al. Civ. A. Nos. 77-0070 S, 79-0087 S, 83-0044 S and 83-0099 S