Sorry for interrupting, but there is something we need to tell you...

We have updated our Cookie Policy to reflect changes in the law on cookies used on websites in Europe. This website uses cookies to maximize your experience and help us to understand how we can improve it. To find out more click here.

Cookies are text files containing small amounts of data which are downloaded to your computer, or other device, when you visit a website. Cookies allow us to recognize your computer and improve your experience on our website. Some cookies are also necessary for the technical operation of our website. Please read our Cookie Policy which provides important information about the cookies we use, how we use them and how they can be deleted. Please remember that deleting cookies may affect your experience of our website.

Show less.

Accept and hide this message
Pillsbury Pillsbury Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Email Page Print Friendly Version Text Size
RSS
Subscribe

Publications & Presentations

We encourage you to peruse this Publications & Presentations section for timely analysis and industry insights, including bylined articles, client alerts, white papers, practice and industry newsletters, audio and video broadcasts, featuring interviews with our lawyers, as well as case studies highlighting compelling legal challenges our clients have faced.

Also, please visit our Events page to learn more about upcoming seminars, CLE programs, and other presentations which may be of interest.

Recent Publications

View all Publications

3/4/2015
Lining Up to Protest
Bid protest dismissed as company fails to allege it was “next in line” for award
Authors: Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Alexander B. Ginsberg

The United States Court of Federal Claims, in a decision issued February 10, 2015, dismissed the bid protest complaint filed in Universal Marine Company, K.S.C. v. United States, No. 14-1115C because the protester was not “next in line” for award and, therefore, lacked standing to protest. As described below, this decision ultimately was an easy one for the Court. The case, however, serves as a critical reminder for potential protesters of the necessity of demonstrating, through a carefully crafted complaint, that they were “prejudiced” by the agency’s actions.

3/4/2015
California Supreme Court Creates Two-Part CEQA Exemption Test in Berkeley Hillside
Authors: Norman F. Carlin, Emily Burkett

Developers and agencies seeking to expedite project reviews under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) often chafe under its unique “fair argument” standard of judicial review, which sets a very low bar for challenges to short-form environmental documents. Rejecting attempts by lower courts to extend the fair argument standard, in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley, the California Supreme Court held that traditional, agency-deferential review applies when determining whether “unusual circumstances” exist which may preclude reliance on a CEQA exemption. However, any encouragement to developers and agencies was promptly tempered by the second step of the Court’s analysis, holding that the plaintiff-favorable fair argument standard applies when determining whether, in turn, those unusual circumstances may cause significant environmental impacts.

3/4/2015
Four Things You Should Know About the Supreme Court’s Decision in Direct Marketing
Authors: Jeffrey M. Vesely, Kerne H. O. Matsubara, Michael J. Cataldo, Paul T. Casas

On March 3, 2015, the United States Supreme Court overturned the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl. The Supreme Court held that the Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”), which bars federal courts from restraining the assessment, levy, or collection of state taxes, did not divest the federal district court of jurisdiction to decide whether Colorado’s use tax reporting provisions violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

Keyword
Type
Professional
Practice / Industry
Focus Teams
From Date
To Date
Pillsbury
Pillsbury Pillsbury Pillsbury