Damages and Medical Monitoring - Podcast

Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Mark A. Behrens February 04, 2014

Medical SymbolThere is a split among appellate courts in the United States over medical monitoring – court-ordered payments to plaintiffs who have been exposed to some potentially harmful product or situation but have no symptoms. Is a present injury a fundamental prerequisite to any award? Should the person or entity that created the product or situation be required to pay plaintiffs for periodic medical testing? Most, but not all, courts say no. Mark Behrens discussed medical monitoring, when and where it might be required, and the latest trends.


  • Mark A. Behrens, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P.

[Listen now!]

NSA Court Decision - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Steven G. Bradbury, Orin S. Kerr, Dean A. Reuter December 20, 2013

A Federalist Society Symposium on the National Security Agency’s Bulk Data Seizures and FISA Surveillance Programs Earlier this week, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon ruled that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Judge Leon enjoined the program in its entirety, but immediately stayed his injunction pending appeal, citing national security considerations. On a Teleforum conference call, our experts discussed the data collection program, Judge Leon’s decision, and the next steps in the case.


  • Steven G. Bradbury, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
  • Prof. Orin S. Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School
  • Moderator: Dean Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]

DeLay v. Texas: Prosecutorial Overreach? - Podcast

Criminal Law & Procedure and Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast
Benjamin Barr, Craig Holman, Dean A. Reuter October 07, 2013

DeLay v. Texas: Prosecutorial Overreach? - PodcastFormer House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been involved in a lengthy legal battle over campaign finance activities in the 2002 election cycle. On September 19, 2013, a Texas court overturned Delay's previous conviction for money laundering, citing the evidence as legally insufficient to sustain his convictions. Our experts provided some summary of previous developments and technical background on the campaign finance aspects of the case, and offered a balanced discussion of the First Amendment issues at play.


  • Benjamin T. Barr, Counsel, Wyoming Liberty Group
  • Dr. Craig Holman, Government Affairs Lobbyist, Public Citizen
  • Moderator: Dean Reuter, Vice President and Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

[Listen now!]

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Excludes Any Exposure Theory in Asbestos and Toxic-Tort Litigation

State Court Docket Watch Summer 2012
William L. Anderson, Kieran Tuckley August 27, 2012

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Excludes Any Exposure Theory in Asbestos and Toxic-Tort LitigationOn May 23, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the trial court had properly excluded the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses from espousing the opinion that every occupational exposure to asbestos contributes substantially to mesothelioma. This is the any exposure theory that has served as the foundation for a significant expansion of asbestos litigation in recent years by incorporating even the smallest amount of occupational exposure as a “substantial factor” in causing disease. This article provides background information on the any exposure theory and explains the significance of this ruling and why this and other courts are regularly rejecting it. The Pennsylvania opinion is only the latest in a series of similar opinions excluding the any exposure theory as unscientific and unsuitable to support causation in toxic tort litigation... [Read more!]

Williams v. Illinois - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 07-05-12 featuring John O'Quinn
John O'Quinn July 05, 2012

John O'QuinnOn June 18, 2012, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Williams v. Illinois. The issue in this case was whether a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated when an expert witness for the prosecution testified at trial about the results of a DNA test in which the expert witness had not been involved, and which had been performed by an out-of-state analyst who was not present at the trial.  The Supreme Court of Illinois found no violation of the Confrontation Clause.

By a vote of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the state supreme court’s judgment.  Justice Alito, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy and Breyer, agreed that admission of the expert testimony about the DNA test results did not violate the Confrontation Clause, because they considered the testimony either not hearsay or not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.  Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment, agreeing that there was no Confrontation Clause violation--but only because he deemed the statements at issue not to be “testimonial.”  Justice Breyer filed a separate concurring opinion.  Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

To discuss the case we have John O’Quinn, who is a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP.