Supreme Court Contract Law News - U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Contract Law Category

Now we're getting to the good stuff. Last week, we helped your insomnia by recapping the juice man's juiceless juice and incomprehensible cross-ideological splits -- not the sort of stuff that anyone but SCOTUS diehards can sit through without being rendered unconscious through boredom.

Fortunately, Monday has arrived, and with it, a questionable gun straw-purchaser holding, an opinion that will allow Ohio's terrible political speech restriction to be challenged, and maybe, just maybe, the collapse of a nation's economy thanks to SCOTUS and Wall Street vultures creditors.

We had a feeling they'd be back.

Last October, we noted that Argentina's first appeal to the Supreme Court was kicked, which wasn't particularly surprising since the appeal was filed before the Second Circuit handed down its decision (ordering Argentina to pay more than $1 billion in debt). While that petition was pending, the Second Circuit handed down its decision, and an appeal of that decision was expected.

Here it is: will the Supreme Court save Argentina from venture "vulture" capitalists, and possibly save that nation from economic collapse?

When does the timer begin to tick?

Julie Heimeshoff filed a claim for long-term disability benefits with Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., the administrator of Walmart's Group Long Term Disability Plan, due to her diagnosis of lupus and fibromyalgia. Her claim was denied after multiple doctors, hired by Hartford, found that even with her condition, she could continue to work her largely sedentary position as a senior public relations manager. The decision took nearly two years, after both sides hired multiple doctors and ordered multiple tests.

The governing ERISA plan requires the claimant to initiate judicial action within three years after "proof of loss" is due, i.e. when she was required to submit the relevant medical evidence. She filed suit three years after her final administrative appeal was denied (or approximately five years after the "proof of loss" was due). Her argument? The clock should start when the judicial cause of action accrues -- not before. And at first blush, her argument makes sense. After all, what happens if the administrative process and appeals eats up the entire term limit?

Unfortunately for her, the Supreme Court sided with the insurer, but for good reason.

It's been a busy early week on First Street, with the Court denying a case that affects anyone who purchases anything on the Internet, and with oral arguments in a frequent flyer dispute.

There were also a pair of decisions handed down by the Court in less exciting matters, namely taxation of partnerships and forum selection clauses in contract.

We're going to play a hunch here and guess that the vast majority of you are more interested in whether you'll pay tax on that online purchase, or whether you can get booted from a frequent flyer program without compensation (and with thousands of miles in your account) and we'll get back to the Court's less exciting opinions later this week.

Though the Court granted certiorari in eight cases last week, the first official day of business is today, and the court rung in the new term with a lengthy 94-page orders list, most of which were denials.

Though the court's jurisdiction is discretionary, there are always a few surprises on the denials sheet, as well as a few that we wish they would've taken up. Here are some of those rejected petitions:

Today's Supreme Court opinions list is more disappointing than Ke$ha's new album. Vanity Fair cleverly quipped that SCOTUS "[c]ruelly" tricked the nation into reading about arbitration.

True indeed.

The opinion list consisted of a pro-business arbitration decision, a bench-slapping of the Ninth Circuit's approach to Armed Career Criminal Act sentencing, and an odd free speech for government funding case. (If you're waiting for the affirmative-action, marriage equality, or Defense of Marriage Act cases, they have yet to be released. Stay tuned, however, as next week is the final week in the Court's term. Expect a lot of decisions, and of course, a lot of blog posts.)

Here's a summary of Thursday's opinions:

Today was not the day where the Supreme Court stood up and affirmed equality. Nor was it the day that they ended affirmative action or a 1960s Voting Rights Act that continues oversight over southern states' elections. Nope. Today was the day of jurisdiction over raisons, narrow decisions on arbitration, and ex post facto application to incarceration non-laws.

If you were waiting for one of the pending landmark cases, we do have good news: more opinions are scheduled for Thursday.

Another Term, Another Arbitration Dispute

Why it seems like only yesterday that many lawyers were just trying to figure out how to pronounce Concepcion.

Alas, that was 2011, and the Supreme Court is moving on to another arbitration dispute: American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant.

The AmEx arbitration litigation has been going on for years. As in, Justice Sonia Sotomayor sat on one of the Second Circuit panels that heard the case when she was but a federal appellate judge. Again, nostalgia ...

5 Things to Know: U.S. Airways v. McCutchen

Here at FindLaw, we understand the pressures of being a legal professional - most of us are recovering lawyers - so we want to help by tossing you that preferred life preserver of the legal profession, the short list.

The equitable remedies provision of ERISA Section 502(a)(3) has been a "hot topic" for years with the Supreme Court, according to BNA; every few years, the Court considers another case interpreting this provision in the context of plans' ability to seek reimbursement from plan participants who receive personal injury settlements. Here are five things you should know about the equitable remedies conflict in this term's ERISA case, U.S. Airways v. McCutchen.

Of Copyrights and Caselaw: Steinbeck Heirs Denied Cert

John Steinbeck's heirs won't be standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court anytime in the near future. The U.S. Supreme Court denied their petition for certiorari in a dispute centered around the copyrights to the famous author's works.

The case was filed by Thomas Steinbeck, the sole surviving son of John Steinbeck. Currently, Thomas and his daughter, Blake Smyle, receive a portion of the proceeds from Steinbeck book sales, reports The Associated Press.