<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
			<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='https://www.mvalaw.com/rss.xsl' ?>
			<rss version='2.0' xmlns:content='http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/'
					xmlns:atom='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'
					xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'>
				<channel>
					<title>MVA Litigation Blog: Moore &amp; Van Allen</title>
					<link>https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog</link>
					<atom:link href='https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog?rss' rel='self' type='application/rss+xml' />
					<description><![CDATA[The latest updates to MVA Litigation Blog.]]></description>
					<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 11:55:07 -0400</lastBuildDate>
					
				<item>
				<title>Transportation at SCOTUS: Arguments on NJ Transit Immunity from Lawsuits in
NY and PA Will be Heard by the U.S. Supreme Court January 14th</title>
				<link>https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/transportation-at-scotus-arguments-on-nj-transit-immunity-from-lawsuits-in-ny-and-pa-will-be-heard-by-the-u-s-supreme-court-january-14th</link>
<dc:creator></dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>litigation-law-blog/transportation-at-scotus-arguments-on-nj-transit-immunity-from-lawsuits-in-ny-and-pa-will-be-heard-by-the-u-s-supreme-court-january-14th</guid>

					<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court kicks off the latest session with transportation issues early up on the calendar. On January 14, 2026, the High Court will hear oral arguments on whether New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) can be sued in New York and Pennsylvania courts. NJ Transit is one of the largest public transit providers in the country, providing interstate transportation services connecting New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. But does that mean it can be sued in the courts of all three states? In our <a href="https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/forum-tbd-30-days-for-removal-to-federal-court-nj-transit-immunity-from-lawsuits-in-ny-and-pa-two-issues-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-decide">previous post</a>, we discussed the U.S. Supreme Court&rsquo;s grant&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Impact of Carroll and Economic Loss Rule on Service Providers in South
Carolina</title>
				<link>https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/impact-of-carroll-and-economic-loss-rule-on-service-providers-in-south-carolina</link>
<dc:creator>Samuel J. Person</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>litigation-law-blog/impact-of-carroll-and-economic-loss-rule-on-service-providers-in-south-carolina</guid>

					<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2025 09:00:02 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>Long has the inconsistent expansion and contraction of the economic loss rule and its exceptions frustrated South Carolina jurists and practitioners alike. Now, the South Carolina Supreme Court hopes to provide clarity by &ldquo;clearing out...the thicket that had grown around [the Court&rsquo;s] past economic loss rule precedent&rdquo; through its decision in <em>Carroll v. Isle of Palms Pest Control, Inc.</em><a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1"><span>[1]</span></a> After years of loose play with the reins of the economic loss rule, the Court has firmly haltered it back to its original purpose of application in product liability cases, but such restrictions may come at a cost to service providers.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Forum TBD: 30 Days for Removal to Federal Court, NJ Transit Immunity from
Lawsuits in NY and PA –  Two Issues the U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide</title>
				<link>https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/forum-tbd-30-days-for-removal-to-federal-court-nj-transit-immunity-from-lawsuits-in-ny-and-pa-two-issues-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-decide</link>
<dc:creator></dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>litigation-law-blog/forum-tbd-30-days-for-removal-to-federal-court-nj-transit-immunity-from-lawsuits-in-ny-and-pa-two-issues-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-decide</guid>

					<pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2025 09:00:03 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<h3>Noteworthy at the U.S. Supreme Court</h3> <p>The court in which a case is litigated can be one of the most important strategic decisions to be made by the parties involved. There are legal parameters in place, however, that may limit a party&rsquo;s choices. For instance, a case that is filed in state court may be removed by the defendant to a seemingly more desirable federal court forum under certain circumstances. And states are entitled to interstate sovereign immunity, meaning one state may not be sued by a private party in the courts of a different state without its consent. Three cases that raise&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Course Correction: U.S. Supreme Court Removed Roadblock for Railroad
Construction Project, Requiring Substantial Deference to Agency’s
Environmental Impact Analysis Under NEPA</title>
				<link>https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/course-correction-u-s-supreme-court-removed-roadblock-for-railroad-construction-project-requiring-substantial-deference-to-agencys-environmental-impact-analysis-under-nepa</link>
<dc:creator></dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>litigation-law-blog/course-correction-u-s-supreme-court-removed-roadblock-for-railroad-construction-project-requiring-substantial-deference-to-agencys-environmental-impact-analysis-under-nepa</guid>

					<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:00:04 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<h6>A "Course Correction" of NEPA Review</h6> <p>In an 8-0 judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had vacated the U.S. Surface Transportation Board&rsquo;s (the &ldquo;Board&rdquo;) approval of a proposed railroad construction project in Utah. The proposed rail line would connect a rural part of Utah to the national freight rail network and enable the transportation of crude oil to refineries in Louisiana, Texas and other locations. In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-975_m648.pdf"><em>Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County</em>, 23-975 (May 29, 2025)</a>, the Supreme Court clarified&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Blocked</title>
				<link>https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/ftcs-non-compete-ban-blocked</link>
<dc:creator>Wood W. Lay, Karin M. McGinnis, Ben E. Shook, Sarah H. Negus</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>litigation-law-blog/ftcs-non-compete-ban-blocked</guid>

					<pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2024 09:00:05 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><strong><u>Bottom line</u></strong><strong>:&nbsp; As of Tuesday night, the FTC&rsquo;s non-compete rule has been set aside, cannot be enforced, and will not become effective on September 4, 2024.&nbsp; </strong></p> <p>As an update to our prior alert regarding the Federal Trade Commission&rsquo;s attempt to ban non-competes (<a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/employers-in-limbo-after-ruling-on-ftcs-non-compete-ban"><strong><span>Employers in Limbo After Ruling on FTC&rsquo;s Non-Compete Ban</span></strong></a>), on August 20, 2024, Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the North District of Texas entered a final ruling on the merits setting aside the FTC&rsquo;s non-compete rule. As predicted, Judge Brown followed the analysis in her prior ruling and held that (1) the FTC&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Employers in Limbo After Ruling on FTC’s Non-Compete Ban</title>
				<link>https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/employers-in-limbo-after-ruling-on-ftcs-non-compete-ban</link>
<dc:creator>Wood W. Lay, Karin M. McGinnis, Ben E. Shook</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>litigation-law-blog/employers-in-limbo-after-ruling-on-ftcs-non-compete-ban</guid>

					<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2024 09:00:06 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>Recent headlines implying a general a stay of the Federal Trade Commission&rsquo;s non-compete rule are misleading.&nbsp; Here&rsquo;s what employers need to know.&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>The FTC Votes to Ban Non-Compete Agreements</title>
				<link>https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/the-ftc-votes-to-ban-non-compete-agreements</link>
<dc:creator>Rachel M. LaBruyere, Wood W. Lay, Karin M. McGinnis</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>litigation-law-blog/the-ftc-votes-to-ban-non-compete-agreements</guid>

					<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:00:07 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 today to approve a final rule banning non-compete agreements nationwide. The rule is slated to go into effect 120 days after its published in the Federal Register.</p> <p>Many have called into question whether the agency has the authority to unilaterally ban non-compete agreements &ndash; including two dissenting commissioners from today&rsquo;s vote. We anticipate that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or a similar entity will seek a temporary restraining order and emergency injunction in the next few days. After that, a wave of lawsuits challenging the rule is&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>In Loper Bright and Relentless, Supreme Court returns to high-stakes
question of viability of the Chevron doctrine</title>
				<link>https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/in-loper-bright-and-relentless-supreme-court-returns-to-high-stakes-question-of-viability-of-the-chevron-doctrine</link>
<dc:creator>James "Jim" P. McLoughlin, Jr., Mary Katherine H. Stukes, Pierce M. Werner,
Chassity Bobbitt</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>litigation-law-blog/in-loper-bright-and-relentless-supreme-court-returns-to-high-stakes-question-of-viability-of-the-chevron-doctrine</guid>

					<pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2023 09:00:08 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><em><strong>This article was first published on Reuters Legal News and Westlaw Today on November 7, 2023.</strong></em></p> <p><span>(November 7, 2023) - James P. McLoughlin Jr., Mary Katherine Stukes and Pierce Werner of Moore &amp; Van Allen discuss the arguments, background and questions surrounding the Supreme Court's upcoming review of the Chevron doctrine.</span></p> <p>On May 1, 2023, the Supreme Court granted<span>&nbsp;</span><em>certiorari</em><span>&nbsp;</span>in<em><span>&nbsp;</span></em><em>Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,</em><span>&nbsp;</span>Case No. 21-5166. The Supreme Court will decide "[w]hether the Court should overrule<span>&nbsp;</span><em>Chevron</em><span>&nbsp;</span>or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>MVA team files amicus brief in the Supreme Court on the future of the
Chevron Doctrine</title>
				<link>https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/the-u-s-supreme-court-considers-the-case-of-loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo-no-22-451</link>
<dc:creator>Chassity N. Bobbitt, Mary Katherine H. Stukes, Pierce M. Werner</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>litigation-law-blog/the-u-s-supreme-court-considers-the-case-of-loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo-no-22-451</guid>

					<pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2023 09:00:09 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>In its 2023 term the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the case of <em>Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo</em>, No. 22-451, in which the appellants have asked the Supreme Court to reverse decision in <em>Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.</em>, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), in which the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that the federal courts should defer authority of a federal agency in the interpretation of a statute where the development of regulations pursuant to a statute on a number of grounds, including the delegation of authority by Congress or the agency&rsquo;s experience&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Tanisha Palvia authors article: SCOTUS clarifies intent requirement for
False Claims Act cases</title>
				<link>https://www.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/tanisha-palvia-and-alli-davidson-co-author-article-scotus-clarifies-intent-requirement-for-false-claims-act-cases-litg</link>
<dc:creator>Tanisha  Palvia</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>litigation-law-blog/tanisha-palvia-and-alli-davidson-co-author-article-scotus-clarifies-intent-requirement-for-false-claims-act-cases-litg</guid>

					<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:00:10 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Moore &amp; Van Allen (MVA) Litigation Member<span>&nbsp;</span><a href="https://www.mvalaw.com/people-TanishaPalvia">Tanisha Palvia</a><span>&nbsp;</span>discuss the Supreme Court decision on the intent standard for False Claims Act violations and explore its implications in their article titled, &ldquo;SCOTUS clarifies intent requirement for False Claims Act cases&rdquo; which was published by<span>&nbsp;</span><em><a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://today.westlaw.com/Document/I746da2591c1f11ee8921fbef1a541940/View/FullText.html?transitionType=SearchItem&amp;contextData=(sc.Search)">Westlaw</a></em><span>&nbsp;</span>and<span>&nbsp;</span><em><a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/scotus-clarifies-intent-requirement-false-claims-act-cases-2023-07-06/">Reuters</a></em><span>&nbsp;</span>on July 6.</strong></p>
<h3>Related Materials</h3>
<p><strong><a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://www.mvalaw.com/media/news/15123_RLN_Palvia_070623.pdf">SCOTUS clarifies intent requirement for False Claims Act cases</a></strong></p>]]></description>
</item>

			</channel></rss>