Mar 11 2026
3rd Cir. 2:20-cv-20559 Panel Decision

Michael Kaplon v. Morris Township Police Department; Madison Police Department; Borough of Madison; Township of Morris; Chief Mark DiCarlo; Chief Darren P. Dachisen, Sr.; Police...

The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for police officers and municipalities in a civil rights case arising from a drunk driving crash and subsequent arrest. The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop the appellant and that the force used to subdue him was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Mar 11 2026
11th Cir. 26-10114 Panel Decision

Untitled Opinion

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an order in this civil matter. The disposition remains pending as the document is incomplete.

Mar 11 2026
Fed. Cir. 24-1243 Panel Decision

THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK v. GEN DIGITAL INC

The Federal Circuit vacated the patent infringement judgment against Gen Digital, ruling that the asserted software claims were directed to an abstract idea under the first step of the Alice analysis. The court also held that damages based on foreign sales were impermissible under U.S. patent law and ordered a reconsideration of enhanced damages and attorney fees.

Mar 11 2026
3rd Cir. 25-1172 Panel Decision

URVE MAGGITTI v. MICHAEL PULLANO; JOSEPH F. KAMPHERSTEIN, III; CLAIRE REEVES; DEB RYAN; DANIEL E. ROLAND; WILLIAM JUDGE; FREDDA L. MADDOX

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of Urve Maggitti's pro se civil rights complaint, ruling that she forfeited her challenge by failing to develop arguments in her brief. The court further held that the District Court acted within its discretion to consolidate related cases and deny recusal motions based on the plaintiff's disagreement with prior rulings.

Mar 10 2026
Fed. Cir. 25-1951 Panel Decision

CONSTANTINE ANANIADES v. UNITED STATES 2025-1951

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims' denial of a plaintiff's renewed motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). The court held that the plaintiff's takings and breach-of-contract claims remained barred by the six-year statute of limitations and that the motion did not present extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.