Guidance for Consumer Products & Services Companies: A Review of the Supreme Court’s 2011 First Amendment and Class Action Decisions (Webinar)
The editors of the Consumer Advertising Law Blog wanted to let our readers know about an upcoming webinar that may be of interest to you, entitled, “Guidance for Consumer Products & Services Companies: A Review of the Supreme Court’s 2011 First Amendment and Class Action Decisions”. In a panel presentation by members of Arnold & Porter’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice and the firm’s consumer industry group, this webinar will provide in-house counsel with practical analyses of the Supreme Court’s 2011 decisions that focused on First Amendment and class action issues relevant to business. The panel will discuss how these decisions affect companies’ ability to advertise and market, as well as the potential to limit litigation and class action risks. This seminar will review the following cases and issues: Sorrell v. IMS: Commercial speech doctrine and free speech rights of regulated industries Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association: Laws designed to protect children through regulation of how products are sold AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion: Limiting class action exposure Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Class certification in antitrust and consumer fraud class actions Goodyear v. Brown; J. McIntyre v. Nicastro; and Smith v. Bayer Corp.: Re-litigation of class certification in other courts after an initial denial and jurisdiction over foreign corporations Panelists at the event will include: The panel, moderated by Amy Ralph Mudge will include the following Arnold & Porter attorneys: Lisa S. Blatt (Washington, DC), Head of the Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Angel A. Garganta (San Francisco) Robert J. Katerberg (Washington, DC) Christopher S. Rhee (Washington, DC) James F. Speyer (Los Angeles) The event will take place from 12:00 PM to 1:30 PM ET/9:00 AM to 10:30 AM PT on September 20, 2011. For more information, please click here for an RSVP link.
Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law Posts –
Legal notice about the Guidance for Consumer Products & Services Companies: A Review of the Supreme Court’s 2011 First Amendment and Class Action Decisions (Webinar)
rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Guidance for Consumer Products & Services Companies: A Review of the Supreme Court’s 2011 First Amendment and Class Action Decisions (Webinar)?
- Guidance for Consumer Products & Services Companies: A Review of the Supreme Court's 2011 First Amendment and Class Action Decisions (Webinar)
- CA Supreme Court Makes It Easier To Sue Companies Under Consumer Protection Laws
- Ohio Supreme Court Rules Criminal Statute Requiring Disclosure of HIV Status Does Not Violate the First Amendment
- Supreme Court hears arguments on Wal-Mart class action suit, witness tampering law
- Supreme Court Accepts Progress Clause and First Amendment Challenges To Copyright Extension
- US Supreme Court holds it has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces of the United States
- Wal-Mart doesn't defeat consumer protection class action
- UPCOMING EVENT: Marketing Medical and Consumer Products in Social Media
- Supreme Court Validates Employer’s Right to Require Class and Collective Action Waivers in Employment-Related Arbitration Agreements
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
This entry was posted in Advertising Law
and tagged 2011
. Bookmark the permalink