Cook v. Chapter 13 Trustee (In re: Chapter 13 Trustee), Case No. 25-1048 (4th Cir. 2025).
Equitable mootness applies only in complex bankruptcy cases where granting relief would be impractical or inequitable, not in a straightforward, small‑dollar Chapter 13 case where a debtor seeks only prospective adjustment of plan payments and no completed transactions must be unwound.
Cuevas Machine Co. v. Calgon Carbon Corp., Case No. 25-60198 (5th Cir. 2026).
A construction lienor’s ability under Mississippi law to satisfy the statutory requirement to “specify the date the claim was due” by attaching invoices that do not plainly indicate the last date labor, services, or materials were supplied presents an unresolved question of state law that must be answered by the Mississippi Supreme Court.
Carter v. SP Plus Corp., Case No. 25-2127 (7th Cir. 2025).
An employee has not agreed to arbitrate, where onboarding forms, including an electronic mutual agreement to arbitrate, were completed and “electronically signed” by an HR staff member without explanation or any opportunity for the employee to review or select on the form.
Abdollah Nia v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 24-6187 (9th Cir. 2026).
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act liability shield bars civil liability for a bank’s good‑faith implementation of sanctions‑driven compliance policies, including closure of an account pursuant to an OFAC‑oriented sanctions program that considers a customer’s citizenship in a comprehensively sanctioned country.
Anderson v. City of Atlanta, Case No. 24-13509 (11th Cir. 2026).
The distinction between on‑premises and off‑premises “general advertising” signs in subsection (7) of Atlanta’s 1982 sign code constitutes a content‑neutral regulation of speech subject to intermediate scrutiny, not a content‑based restriction triggering strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
Joyce v. Forest River, Inc., Case No. 24-12819 (11th Cir. 2026).
The presumptions in Florida Statute section 681.104(3) (Florida’s Lemon Law) of “reasonable number of attempts” to repair are permissive evidentiary presumptions and not mandatory prerequisites to a consumer’s entitlement to relief, so a consumer may prove a reasonable number of repair attempts without satisfying the statutory presumptions.
The Lane Construction Corp. v. Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc., Case No. 24-12638 (11th Cir. 2026).
A joint‑venture partner that refuses to fund contractually required capital calls materially breaches the joint‑venture agreement, notwithstanding alleged fiduciary‑duty breaches by the managing partner, and the non‑breaching partners are contractually entitled to indemnity and prejudgment interest for having paid more than their proportionate shares.
AE Opco III, LLC v. AAR Corp. (In re: AE OpCo III, LLC), Case No. 25-11348 (11th Cir. 2026).
Section 502(e)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code requires disallowance of a creditor’s contingent reimbursement claim when the creditor is co‑liable with the debtor to a third party but does not bar a fixed indemnity claim for already‑incurred defense costs.
