Decided - FindLaw Important Court Decisions and Settlements Blog

Decided - The FindLaw Noteworthy Decisions and Settlements Blog


Johns Hopkins Hospital has proposed a $190 million payout to settle a class-action lawsuit over a gynecologist's secret recordings of patients.

The late Dr. Nikita A. Levy is alleged to have "surreptitiously recorded patients over the course of several years," reports The Baltimore Sun. Although Levy committed suicide in February 2013 amid an investigation into his alleged recordings, Hopkins had identified more than 12,500 potential victims.

What would this proposed settlement cover for Levy's victims?

A smoker's widow was awarded $23.6 billion in punitive damages from RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, but the award may not survive appeal.

A Florida jury on Friday granted Cynthia Robinson the multibillion-dollar sum in punitive damages, as well as $7.3 million in compensatory damages. Reuters reports that Robinson's husband was a chain smoker and died in 1996 of lung cancer at 36.

Does this incredibly large punitive award stand a chance?

A federal district judge has ruled that California's death penalty system is unconstitutional, ironically because Death Row takes too long.

U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney determined in Jones v. Chappell that the massive delays in the Golden State's administration of the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Reuters reports that since 1978, only 13 convicts have been executed in California, while more than 900 were sentenced to death.

Is waiting too long for the death penalty in California really unconstitutional?

The University of Texas at Austin can continue its affirmative action program, after a federal appeals court upheld its use on Tuesday.

In a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the use of race in undergraduate admissions, Reuters reports. This decision comes more than one year after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the case to be returned to the 5th Circuit and be examined under more exacting scrutiny.

Why did affirmative action make it in this case?

Michigan's convicts serving life sentences for crimes committed as juveniles won't be getting resentenced or a chance for parole after a Michigan Supreme Court ruling on Monday.

The state's highest court determined in a 4-3 decision that more than 350 juvenile "lifers" who are serving sentences related to killings committed at age 17 and younger should not be retroactively resentenced, reports MLive.com. This case was in response to a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held it was unconstitutional to generally punish teens to life without the possibility of parole.

Why were these juvenile lifers denied a chance at parole?

If you bought a computer, video game console, or other electronic device between 1998 and 2002, chances are you're eligible to get at least $10 -- and maybe more -- just by filling out a form.

As part of a price-fixing lawsuit settlement, manufacturers of DRAM -- aka Dynamic Random Access Memory, a type of memory used in most computers -- have agreed to provide rebates to consumers who purchased products containing DRAM during the years in question, with no documentation required on your part.

Fill out the form; acquire currency. Can it really be that simple?

Arizona immigrants celebrated a victory in court Monday, when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked enforcement of a policy that prohibits young immigrants from receiving Arizona driver's licenses.

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA, also known as the "Dream Act") gives certain residents who were brought to the United States without documentation as children a chance to legally remain in the country and work. But under Arizona's policy, these "Dreamers" couldn't use their federally authorized employment documents as proof of their legal presence in the country.

Why did the 9th Circuit block this driver's license policy?

The U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 Term was full of surprises both in the public and private sectors. After the High Court's final opinions were released Monday, we had an opportunity to revisit some of this session's biggest cases.

Here are our picks for the Top 10 Supreme Court decisions from the 2013 Term, which began back in October:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn, wrapping up its 2013 Term by addressing two contentious issues: Obamacare's contraceptive mandate and public union dues.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court ruled that closely held corporations can object to providing certain forms of birth control to employees as required under Obamacare, if doing so would violate sincerely held religious beliefs. In Harris v. Quinn, the Court held that Illinois home healthcare workers could not be compelled to pay union dues to unions they were not members of.

What was the High Court's rationale in these two much-anticipated opinions?

The government's "no-fly list" rules were ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Oregon on Tuesday, who held the government must change its procedures.

U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown issued a ruling criticizing the lack of notice and respect for citizens' due-process rights in flagging passengers for the no-fly list. The Los Angeles Times reports that this ruling is the first of its kind, and recognizes that "international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society."

So how exactly did Judge Brown rule on the "no-fly list?"