Other Decisions: Decided
Decided - The FindLaw Noteworthy Decisions and Settlements Blog

Recently in Other Category

UPS Settles Delivery Fraud Claims for $4 Million

Guaranteed next-day on-time delivery was a false claim and now United Parcel Service is paying. UPS workers illegally recorded inaccurate delivery times on packages sent by government customers, prompting a $4 million settlement, the New York State Attorney General announced yesterday.

The shipping giant violated the false claims acts of 14 states and three major US cities. NY AG Eric Schneiderman stated, "Corporations that improperly profit at the expense of taxpayers will be held to account."

The Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments for its October term on Monday, and if you want a rundown of the biggest cases on the docket this month, we've got it for you.

But just as important as the cases that the Court will hear this term are those that it won't. By declining to review certain cases on appeal, the Supreme Court is essentially saying the lower court got it right, or there is no issue for the highest court in the land to figure out. Here are some of the big cases the Supreme Court passed on:

StarKist is offering aggrieved customers the option of $25 in cash or $50 in tuna in order to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the tuna company of shorting the amount of fish in its cans.

The total payout will come to about $8 million, although StarKist has not admitted any fault.

Don't you just hate it when the cable company keeps calling you and won't let up? Well, don't just take it sitting down -- sue them!

Araceli King, of Irving, Texas, won a big victory over the Time Warner Cable Inc. last week in her lawsuit against the company over annoying and harassing robocalls.

Time after time, Obamacare has withstood challenges before the Supreme Court.

This time, opponents of the law tried to use four words in the 2,700 page bill to bring the law down. Yesterday, they failed.

You work all year to grow grapes and make raisins. Then, the government says you have to give them some of those raisins for free! Are you happy about that?

Well, the government can no longer exploit raisin growers for free sweet snacks after the Supreme Court sided with raisin farmers in the case of Horne v. Department of Agriculture.

In a clash between the Executive and Legislative Branches, the judicial branch sided with the President. In a 6-3 decision announced on Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute that allowed Americans born in Jerusalem to have Israel listed as their country of birth on passports.

Instead, the Court said that the President has exclusive authority to recognize foreign sovereigns. The ruling appears to solidify the Executive Branch's power over diplomacy and foreign policy, but where did it come from, and what will it mean?

It has been nearly a year since a traumatic six-car accident critically injured comedians Tracy Morgan, Harris Stanton, and Ardie Fuqua, and killed 62-year-old James McNair.

Earlier this year, Walmart reached a settlement with McNair's family for $10 million. This month, Morgan has also settled his case with Walmart

Remember those lawyers up in arms over Target's proposed $19M settlement with MasterCard over the retailer's massive 2013 data breach? Well it looks like a good day for them.

The companies had a 90% participation threshold in order to certify the settlement and a May 20 deadline to meet it. The deadline passed without the required participation, so now the settlement is on hold and could be voided.

So what does this mean for the consumers and the banks involved?

Lately, we've heard a lot of discourse and protest about excessive use of police violence against minorities. However, there is an equally vulnerable minority group, the mentally ill and disabled, who are also frequent victims of police force.

In the case of City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, the Supreme Court considered whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires police to provide accommodations to armed and violent mentally ill suspects. The Court also looked at whether the Fourth Amendment clearly establishes that officers cannot forcibly enter the home of an armed, mentally ill subject when there was no immediate need.

In its ruling, the Court sidestepped both issues.