Westlaw Journals weekly round-up

September 4, 2013

Westlaw Journals Weekly RoundupThe new Westlaw Journals blog brings you litigation headlines in over 30 substantive areas of law. We hope you had a relaxing Labor Day! Here are some highlights from the past week:


Law firm calls denial of Sandy claim ‘criminal indifference’: A New York City law firm claims its insurers breached their contract and acted in bad faith and that their refusal to provide coverage for the firm’s business interruption losses stemming from Superstorm Sandy amounts to “criminal indifference.” In a suit filed Aug. 7 in the New York County Supreme Court, law firm Mintz & Gold alleges its insurers engaged in a scheme to lessen their exposure to such claims in the wake of the destructive storm. (Insurance Bad Faith)

New Jersey can exclude shorter-term immigrants from Medicaid, court says: New Jersey can exclude immigrants with less than five years of U.S. residency from the state-funded portion of its Medicaid program even though the U.S. Constitution usually prevents states from discriminating against legal aliens, a state appeals court has decided. Over a spirited dissent, a divided three-judge panel of the New Jersey Superior Court’s Appellate Division held Aug. 13 that because the state tied its exclusionary criteria to a “uniform federal standard” governing Medicaid funding, the decision deserves only rational basis review, which is far more permissive than the strict scrutiny immigration-based classifications usually receive. (Health Law)

Bristol-Myers wins battle, loses war in dispute with generics manufacturer: A federal judge in New York has dismissed a breach-of-contract lawsuit Bristol-Myers Squibb filed against an Indian manufacturer of generic drugs after determining that the court had jurisdiction over the case but that the allegations had no merit. U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York concluded Aug. 12 that Bristol-Myers failed to establish that Matrix Laboratories Ltd. breached an “immunity from suit” agreement involving the manufacture and sale of a generic drug for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. (Intellectual Property)

Attorney defendant loses appeal over perjured testimony: An attorney has lost his appeal of an Arkansas federal court conviction for mortgage fraud because a federal appeals court found that perjured testimony by a key witness against him did not affect the guilty verdict. On Aug. 2, a unanimous panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the perjured testimony was an allowable trial error under Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), because it did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the jury’s verdict. (White-Collar Crime)