Source: https://wlflegalpulse.com/author/corylandrews/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:58:38+00:00

Document:
One act in the nationwide climate-litigation sideshow recently got the proverbial hook from a Pennsylvania-based federal judge. From chambers that are fittingly just around the corner from Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Judge Paul S. Diamond refused to “make the Executive a subsidiary of the Judiciary,” which is exactly what the plaintiffs in Clean Air Council, et al. v. United States sought.
What Did We Learn From the Supreme Court Oral Argument in Apple v. Pepper?
We’ve blogged previously about the Supreme Court’s biggest antitrust case of the October Term 2018, Apple v. Pepper. The case asks the Court to decide whether iPhone users who buy apps from Apple’s App Store may sue Apple for alleged antitrust violations, or whether only third-party app developers may bring such claims. The answer turns on whether and how the Court applies the rule announced in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which holds that only the direct purchaser of a good or service may sue an allegedly abusive monopolist for damages.
One of the more interesting cases the Supreme Court will hear in the new term is Apple, Inc. v. Pepper. We’ve blogged previously about the case here. Superficially, the Court will decide whether iPhone users who buy apps from Apple’s App Store may sue Apple for alleged antitrust violations, or whether only app developers may bring such claims. But more fundamentally, resolution of the case hinges on the continued viability of Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which holds that only the direct purchaser of a good or service may sue an allegedly abusive monopolist for damages.
Should the law recognize a plaintiff’s tort claims against a branded drug manufacturer when the drug that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injuries was manufactured and sold by the defendant’s generic competitor? State and federal courts have been grappling with this novel question of “innovator liability” ever since the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Pliva and Bartlett, that such tort claims against generic manufacturers are preempted under federal law.
The independent-contractor model has been an important catalyst for improving the nation’s economic vitality. Because individuals often provide services for others while maintaining independent control over the means and methods of their own work, the use of independent contractors fosters an entrepreneurial spirit while giving firms that contract with such individuals an increased flexibility that promotes efficiency and innovation.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.