Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Case No. 24-983 (2026).
A defendant is liable under Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act for trafficking in "property which was confiscated by the Cuban Government" when it uses the physical property to which a United States national owns a claim, and the plaintiff need not prove that the defendant's conduct would have interfered with a property interest that would still exist in a counterfactual world without confiscation.
Sociedad Concesionaria Metropolitana de Salud S.A. v. Webuild S.p.A., Case No. 24-3060 (3d Cir. 2026).
Under Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 210 n.36 (1977), a court adjudicating an action to collect on an already adjudicated liability, including confirmation and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, may exercise traditional quasi in rem jurisdiction without requiring minimum contacts between the forum, the defendant, and the underlying controversy where the defendant owns property within the forum state.
Jackson v. Protas, Spivok & Collins LLC, Case No. 25-1971 (4th Cir. 2026).
A debt-collection law firm's role as litigation counsel does not constitute "servicing" a loan within the meaning of an arbitration clause it is not a party to and cannot compel arbitration under that agreement merely because its client is a party to the agreement.
Megatel Homes, L.L.C. v. City of Mansfield, Texas, Case No. 25-11006 (5th Cir. 2026).
A municipality is not entitled to state-action immunity from federal antitrust claims under the Sherman Act unless the state has clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed a policy authorizing that specific municipality – not merely another utility holding a certificate of convenience and necessity – to act anticompetitively in the relevant geographic area.
PCC Airfoils, LLC v. Daugherty, Case No. 25-3794 (6th Cir. 2026).
A district court evaluating a motion for a preliminary injunction must apply a sliding-scale inquiry that weighs all four traditional factors against one another and may not require a movant to establish each factor individually by clear and convincing evidence.
Hinkes v. Sunera Technologies, Inc., Case No. 25-1268 (7th Cir. 2026).
Section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Arbitration Act authorizes a court to vacate an arbitration award only for an arbitrator's failure to receive pertinent evidence, not for the admission of evidence the losing party considers excessive, unreliable, or undisclosed in pre-hearing discovery.
Olson v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 24-6527 (9th Cir. 2026).
A non-signatory to an arbitration agreement containing a delegation clause cannot invoke that clause to compel a signatory to arbitrate arbitrability where the agreement's plain language expressly limits its scope to disputes between the signatory and the other contracting party.
Mobile Baykeeper, Inc. v. Alabama Power Co., Case No. 24-12682 (11th Cir. 2026).
An environmental plaintiff challenging a noncompliant coal-ash closure plan has standing and presents a ripe claim where its members allege recreational and aesthetic injuries traceable to ongoing toxic leaching under the plan and that a court-ordered compliant plan would at least partially redress those injuries, notwithstanding that the underlying contamination predated the closure plan or that final implementation lies in the future.
T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Georgia, Case No. 24-13713 (11th Cir. 2026).
The effective prohibition provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i), limits only a state or local government's "regulation" of wireless facility siting – meaning rules or restrictions of general application – and does not reach the denial of a single permit application.
