View in Browser

Volume XVIII, Issue 41

Oct. 16, 2025

 

Perrong v. Bradford, Case No. 24-1925 (3d Cir. 2025).

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act's robocall restriction does not apply to calls made by state legislators when they are exercising legitimate functions of their office for the public benefit.

 

Hignell-Stark v. City of New Orleans, Case No. 24-30160 (5th Cir. 2025).

New Orleans's short-term rental regulation scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause by prohibiting business entities from obtaining owner and operator permits and the First Amendment by unduly restricting advertisements, but its operator residency requirement does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause.

 

Outdoor One Communications LLC v. Charter Township of Canton, Case No. 24-1496 (6th Cir. 2025).

The Sixth Circuit ruled that plaintiffs contesting zoning regulations for billboards must still meet the traditional three-part test (injury, causation, and redressability) but previous permit applications under the challenged regulation satisfy the injury requirement by demonstrating the plaintiff "has been and will continue to be subject to the challenged ordinance."

 

PACK Private Capital, LLC v. Associated Bank, N.A., Case No. 24-3467 (8th Cir. 2025).

Minnesota's credit agreement statute of frauds bars equitable estoppel claims seeking to enforce oral promises modifying subordination agreements.

 

For more information, please visit taftlaw.com.

Sign up for the newsletters here.

For past issues, visit here.

Author

Manny Farach

Facebook X Instagram LinkedIn

Unsubscribe | Email Preferences | Privacy Policy

 

This email was sent to: 38185e38-ffa5-4e0f-e873-118667285ead  
 

This email was sent by:  Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

525 Okeechobee Boulevard

Suite 900

West Palm Beach, FL 33401