top of page


1-800 Contacts Inc. v.

722 F.3d 1229 (2013)

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Initial-interest confusion is a valid basis for a trademark-infringement claim under the Lanham Act.

135 East 57th Street LLC v. Daffy’s Inc.

934 N.Y.S.2d 112 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A late notice to exercise an option may still be excused on equitable grounds even if the contract provides for timely written notice.

14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett

556 U.S. 247 (2009)

Supreme Court of the United States

A provision in a collective bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable so long as the provision is a "bargained-for exchange".

1464-Eight, Ltd. & Millis Management Corp. v. Joppich

154 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2004)

Texas Supreme Court

The failure to deliver nominal consideration recited in an option contract is insufficient to prohibit enforcement of the option contract.

1515-1519 Lakeview Blvd. Condo. Ass'n v. Apartment Sales Corp.

43 P.3d 1233 (Wash. 2002)

Washington Supreme Court

Covenants not to sue for damages to land touch and concern the land.

152 Valparaiso Associates v. City of Cotati

56 Cal.App.4th 378 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)

California Court of Appeal, First District

A rent-control scheme that deprives a landlord of a fair return on its investment is unconstitutional.

16 Case Duse, LLC v. Merkin

791 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015)

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Generally, inseparable creative contributions of a copyrighted work have no separate copyrights.

1616 Second Avenue v. State Liquor Authority

550 N.E.2d 910 (N.Y. 1990)

New York Court of Appeals

Failure to disqualify an administrative official from reviewing an adjudicatory proceeding violates due process where the official makes public statements that indicate prejudgment of specific facts at issue on review.

164 Mulberry Street Corp. v. Columbia University

771 N.Y.S.2d 16 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

An Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claim may be sustainable where the defendant engages in a campaign of harassment with reckless disregard for its consequences so long as the plaintiff does not pursue any alternative theories of recovery for the same conduct.

168th and Dodge, LP v. Rave Reviews Cinemas, LLC

501 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2007)

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

An indefinite, preliminary agreement that merely outlines the terms of a potential future agreement is insufficient to form a binding contract.

bottom of page