Commercial & Civil Litigation   

Argued the appeal and drafted the brief of appelant. The Fourth Circuit held, in a civil RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) , that the plantiff's injury  need not derive solely from the use of the investment funds, but may also arise from the fraudulent activity, itself. The court also, sua sponte, sitting en banc, reversed a previous panel holding and found that, in a section 1962(a) claim, the racketeering enterprise and defendant may be the same entity.

Lead counsel for the appellee and argued the appeal for the appellee before the Fourth Circuit. The court found that a trademark based upon an abbreviation (acronym) was not infringed by the use of a longer phrase from which abbreviation was derived. The court also found that there was no confusion caused by the appellee's use of larger descriptive phrase from which the appellant's trademark abbreviation was based.

Principal drafter of the brief of appellee. The D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of claims based on plaintiff's failure to respond to discovery and established the standards for invalidating wills in the District of Columbia based on allegations of fraud and undue duress.

Trial co-counsel and drafted the substantive motions and trial related pleadings where the trustees of a multi-employer pension fund prevailed in a suit by a disappointed borrower because the loan would have constituted a prohibited transaction under ERISA.

Drafted the brief of the amicus curiae. The Ninth Circuit adopted the reasoning in the amicus curie brief and extended the psychotherapist-patient testimonial privilege to employee assistance professionals.

Argued the appeal before the D.C. Circuit and drafted the brief of appellant before that court and the brief of the respondant before the United States Supreme Court. The D.C. Circuit held that, in a federal workmen's compensation case, an injured employee was entitled to the greater of the benefit for the loss of the use of a scheduled body part or the formula benefit for all other injuries. The United States Supreme Court reversed that decision.

Principal drafter of the brief of intervener. The court adopted the arguments in the intervener's brief and upheld the board's determination that a railroad's rates in conjunction with a bottleneck movement were unreasonable.

Argued the appeal and drafted the brief of appellant. The Virginia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court for taking into account the value of an equitable distribution award in determining the amount of spousal support awarded to the wife.