Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.
Headline: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Breach of Contract Claim
Citation:
Brief at a Glance
A company was not sued for breach of contract because the agreement only required 'best efforts' to get approvals, not a guarantee, and the plaintiff failed to prove those efforts were lacking.
- A 'best efforts' clause requires a genuine attempt, not a guaranteed outcome.
- To prove breach of a 'best efforts' clause, one must show a lack of reasonable effort, not just failure to achieve the goal.
- Contracts must clearly define performance obligations to avoid ambiguity.
Case Summary
Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co., decided by Second Circuit on July 29, 2025, resulted in a defendant win outcome. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a breach of contract claim, holding that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead that the defendant breached the contract by failing to obtain necessary approvals for a play's production. The court found that the contract's language did not impose a strict obligation on the defendant to secure approvals, but rather a best efforts obligation, which the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege was breached. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court held: The court held that a "best efforts" clause in a contract does not guarantee a specific outcome but requires the promisor to make reasonable efforts to achieve the objective, and the plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating a lack of such efforts to state a claim for breach.. The court held that a plaintiff must plead specific facts showing the defendant's failure to perform a contractual obligation, not just a general assertion of non-performance, to survive a motion to dismiss.. The court held that the interpretation of contract language is a question of law, and absent ambiguity, the plain meaning of the terms will be enforced.. The court held that the plaintiff's allegations regarding the defendant's failure to obtain necessary approvals were insufficient to establish a breach of the "best efforts" obligation, as they did not detail specific actions the defendant failed to take.. The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.. This decision reinforces the heightened pleading standards required under Twombly and Iqbal, particularly in contract disputes involving "best efforts" clauses. Parties must plead specific factual allegations demonstrating a lack of reasonable effort, rather than simply asserting that
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Case Analysis — Multiple Perspectives
Plain English (For Everyone)
Imagine you hire someone to build a play, and they promise to try their best to get all the necessary permissions. If they don't get all the permissions, you can't automatically sue them for breaking the contract. You have to show they didn't actually try their best, which is a much harder thing to prove. This case says that unless the contract clearly states they *must* get the permissions, just not getting them isn't enough to win a lawsuit.
For Legal Practitioners
The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim, clarifying the pleading standard for breach of contract based on a 'best efforts' clause. The court distinguished between a strict obligation to obtain approvals and a best efforts obligation, emphasizing that plaintiffs must plead specific facts demonstrating a failure to exert best efforts, not just the absence of the desired outcome. This ruling underscores the importance of precise contractual language and fact-pleading when alleging breach of best efforts covenants.
For Law Students
This case tests the pleading requirements for breach of contract, specifically concerning 'best efforts' clauses. The court distinguished between a mandatory obligation and a best efforts obligation, holding that a plaintiff must plead facts showing a lack of best efforts, not merely the failure to achieve a specific result. This fits within contract law's broader doctrine on the interpretation of performance standards and the burden of proof for breach, raising exam issues on distinguishing between different levels of contractual obligation and the specificity required in pleading.
Newsroom Summary
A theater production company won't have to face a lawsuit for failing to get all necessary approvals for a play. The appeals court ruled that the contract only required the company to 'try their best,' not guarantee success, and the other party didn't provide enough evidence of that failure. This impacts how easily creators can sue over unmet expectations in performance contracts.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- The court held that a "best efforts" clause in a contract does not guarantee a specific outcome but requires the promisor to make reasonable efforts to achieve the objective, and the plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating a lack of such efforts to state a claim for breach.
- The court held that a plaintiff must plead specific facts showing the defendant's failure to perform a contractual obligation, not just a general assertion of non-performance, to survive a motion to dismiss.
- The court held that the interpretation of contract language is a question of law, and absent ambiguity, the plain meaning of the terms will be enforced.
- The court held that the plaintiff's allegations regarding the defendant's failure to obtain necessary approvals were insufficient to establish a breach of the "best efforts" obligation, as they did not detail specific actions the defendant failed to take.
- The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- A 'best efforts' clause requires a genuine attempt, not a guaranteed outcome.
- To prove breach of a 'best efforts' clause, one must show a lack of reasonable effort, not just failure to achieve the goal.
- Contracts must clearly define performance obligations to avoid ambiguity.
- Failure to state a claim requires dismissal, meaning the plaintiff didn't present enough facts to win even if everything they said was true.
- Appellate courts review dismissals for failure to state a claim to ensure the law was applied correctly.
Deep Legal Analysis
Standard of Review
The Second Circuit reviews the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. This standard applies because the appellate court "'reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.'" The court's task is to determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, without deference to the lower court's decision.
Procedural Posture
Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. (Atticus) sued The Dramatic Publishing Company (Dramatic) for copyright infringement. Atticus alleged that Dramatic infringed its copyright in the play "The Boys in the Band" by publishing and distributing a play titled "The Boys in the Band" that was substantially similar to Atticus's copyrighted work. The District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Dramatic, finding no substantial similarity between the two works. Atticus appealed this decision to the Second Circuit.
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof for copyright infringement generally rests with the plaintiff, Atticus. To establish infringement, Atticus must prove (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. Once copying is established, the burden shifts to the defendant, Dramatic, to prove that the copying was not improper, i.e., that the works are not substantially similar. However, in the context of summary judgment, the initial burden is on the moving party (Dramatic) to show the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, and then the burden shifts to the non-moving party (Atticus) to demonstrate such a dispute.
Legal Tests Applied
Substantial Similarity
Elements: Ownership of a valid copyright · Copying of constituent elements of the work that are original · Whether the "total concept and feel" of the two works are substantially similar
The court applied the substantial similarity test by first acknowledging Atticus's ownership of a valid copyright and the fact that Dramatic had access to Atticus's work. The core of the analysis focused on whether the "total concept and feel" of the two plays were substantially similar. The court concluded that despite some superficial similarities in themes and character archetypes, the "total concept and feel" were not substantially similar, emphasizing differences in plot, character development, and overall tone.
Constitutional Issues
Copyright infringement
Key Legal Definitions
Rule Statements
"To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original."
"Even if copying is established, infringement occurs only if the copying amounts to improper appropriation, meaning that the defendant copied original expression and that the works are substantially similar."
"The test for substantial similarity is whether an ordinary observer, comparing the two works, would conclude that the defendant took from the plaintiff's work 'copyrightable expression.'"
Entities and Participants
Key Takeaways
- A 'best efforts' clause requires a genuine attempt, not a guaranteed outcome.
- To prove breach of a 'best efforts' clause, one must show a lack of reasonable effort, not just failure to achieve the goal.
- Contracts must clearly define performance obligations to avoid ambiguity.
- Failure to state a claim requires dismissal, meaning the plaintiff didn't present enough facts to win even if everything they said was true.
- Appellate courts review dismissals for failure to state a claim to ensure the law was applied correctly.
Know Your Rights
Real-world scenarios derived from this court's ruling:
Scenario: You hire a contractor to renovate your kitchen, and the contract states they will 'use their best efforts' to obtain a specific permit. They don't get the permit, and the renovation is delayed. You want to sue them for breach of contract.
Your Rights: You have the right to sue for breach of contract if the contractor genuinely failed to make a reasonable effort to obtain the permit. However, you do not have the right to sue simply because the permit was not obtained, as the contract likely only required them to try their best, not guarantee success.
What To Do: Gather evidence showing the contractor did not take reasonable steps to obtain the permit. This could include communication records, evidence of their lack of experience with the permitting process, or proof they didn't follow standard procedures. Consult with a lawyer to assess if your evidence meets the 'failure to exert best efforts' standard.
Is It Legal?
Common legal questions answered by this ruling:
Is it legal to sue someone for breach of contract if they promised to 'try their best' to do something, but they didn't succeed?
It depends. You can sue if you can prove they did not actually make a genuine, reasonable effort to succeed. You generally cannot sue them simply because they failed to achieve the desired outcome, as 'best efforts' does not guarantee success.
This interpretation of 'best efforts' clauses is common across many jurisdictions, but specific pleading requirements can vary.
Practical Implications
For Contractors and Service Providers
This ruling reinforces that 'best efforts' clauses provide a degree of protection against claims when the desired outcome isn't achieved, provided reasonable efforts were made. Providers should ensure contracts clearly define 'best efforts' and maintain documentation of their efforts to mitigate risk.
For Plaintiffs alleging breach of contract
This ruling raises the bar for pleading breach of contract claims based on 'best efforts' obligations. Plaintiffs must now focus on demonstrating specific failures in the effort itself, rather than just the lack of a positive result, requiring more detailed factual allegations.
Related Legal Concepts
Failure to perform any term of a contract without a legitimate legal excuse. Best Efforts Clause
A contractual provision requiring a party to make reasonable and diligent effort... Failure to State a Claim
A legal defense arguing that even if the plaintiff's allegations are true, they ... Pleading Standard
The rules that govern the level of detail and specificity required in legal docu...
Frequently Asked Questions (41)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (10)
Q: What is Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. about?
Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. is a case decided by Second Circuit on July 29, 2025.
Q: What court decided Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.?
Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. was decided by the Second Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.
Q: When was Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. decided?
Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. was decided on July 29, 2025.
Q: What is the citation for Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.?
The citation for Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.
Q: What is the full case name and citation for this Second Circuit decision?
The full case name is Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co., and it was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Q: Who were the parties involved in the Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. case?
The parties were Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co., the plaintiff and appellant, and the Dramatic Publishing Company, the defendant and appellee.
Q: What was the primary legal issue decided in Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.?
The primary issue was whether Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. adequately pleaded that the Dramatic Publishing Company breached their contract by failing to obtain necessary approvals for a play's production.
Q: Which court issued the decision in Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.?
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued the decision, affirming the district court's dismissal.
Q: What was the nature of the dispute in Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.?
The dispute centered on a breach of contract claim where the plaintiff alleged the defendant failed to fulfill its contractual obligations regarding securing approvals for a play's production.
Q: What was the outcome of the appeal in Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.?
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the breach of contract claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Legal Analysis (15)
Q: Is Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. published?
Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.
Q: What was the ruling in Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.?
The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.. Key holdings: The court held that a "best efforts" clause in a contract does not guarantee a specific outcome but requires the promisor to make reasonable efforts to achieve the objective, and the plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating a lack of such efforts to state a claim for breach.; The court held that a plaintiff must plead specific facts showing the defendant's failure to perform a contractual obligation, not just a general assertion of non-performance, to survive a motion to dismiss.; The court held that the interpretation of contract language is a question of law, and absent ambiguity, the plain meaning of the terms will be enforced.; The court held that the plaintiff's allegations regarding the defendant's failure to obtain necessary approvals were insufficient to establish a breach of the "best efforts" obligation, as they did not detail specific actions the defendant failed to take.; The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure..
Q: Why is Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. important?
Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. has an impact score of 15/100, indicating narrow legal impact. This decision reinforces the heightened pleading standards required under Twombly and Iqbal, particularly in contract disputes involving "best efforts" clauses. Parties must plead specific factual allegations demonstrating a lack of reasonable effort, rather than simply asserting that
Q: What precedent does Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. set?
Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that a "best efforts" clause in a contract does not guarantee a specific outcome but requires the promisor to make reasonable efforts to achieve the objective, and the plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating a lack of such efforts to state a claim for breach. (2) The court held that a plaintiff must plead specific facts showing the defendant's failure to perform a contractual obligation, not just a general assertion of non-performance, to survive a motion to dismiss. (3) The court held that the interpretation of contract language is a question of law, and absent ambiguity, the plain meaning of the terms will be enforced. (4) The court held that the plaintiff's allegations regarding the defendant's failure to obtain necessary approvals were insufficient to establish a breach of the "best efforts" obligation, as they did not detail specific actions the defendant failed to take. (5) The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Q: What are the key holdings in Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.?
1. The court held that a "best efforts" clause in a contract does not guarantee a specific outcome but requires the promisor to make reasonable efforts to achieve the objective, and the plaintiff must plead facts demonstrating a lack of such efforts to state a claim for breach. 2. The court held that a plaintiff must plead specific facts showing the defendant's failure to perform a contractual obligation, not just a general assertion of non-performance, to survive a motion to dismiss. 3. The court held that the interpretation of contract language is a question of law, and absent ambiguity, the plain meaning of the terms will be enforced. 4. The court held that the plaintiff's allegations regarding the defendant's failure to obtain necessary approvals were insufficient to establish a breach of the "best efforts" obligation, as they did not detail specific actions the defendant failed to take. 5. The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Q: What cases are related to Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.?
Precedent cases cited or related to Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.: Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 859 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2017); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Jacobs v. Mullin, 963 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1992).
Q: What specific type of claim did Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. bring against the Dramatic Publishing Company?
Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. brought a breach of contract claim against the Dramatic Publishing Company.
Q: What was the plaintiff's core allegation regarding the defendant's contractual obligations?
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached the contract by failing to obtain necessary approvals for the production of a play.
Q: Did the Second Circuit find that the contract imposed a strict obligation on the defendant to secure approvals?
No, the Second Circuit found that the contract's language did not impose a strict obligation but rather a 'best efforts' obligation on the defendant to secure approvals.
Q: What legal standard did the Second Circuit apply when reviewing the district court's dismissal?
The Second Circuit reviewed the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), applying a de novo standard of review.
Q: What did the plaintiff need to show to adequately plead a breach of contract based on the 'best efforts' standard?
The plaintiff needed to sufficiently allege facts demonstrating that the defendant failed to exercise its best efforts to obtain the necessary approvals, not just that the approvals were not obtained.
Q: How did the court interpret the phrase 'necessary approvals' in the context of the contract?
The court interpreted 'necessary approvals' in conjunction with the 'best efforts' clause, meaning the defendant was obligated to try its best to get them, not guarantee their procurement.
Q: What is the significance of a 'best efforts' obligation in contract law, as illustrated by this case?
A 'best efforts' obligation requires a party to take all reasonable steps to achieve a contractual objective, but it does not guarantee success and is a higher standard than 'good faith' efforts.
Q: What was the plaintiff's failure in pleading that led to the dismissal?
The plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege facts demonstrating a breach of the 'best efforts' obligation, focusing instead on the lack of approvals without detailing the defendant's lack of effort.
Q: What does it mean for a claim to be dismissed for 'failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted'?
This dismissal, under Rule 12(b)(6), means that even if all the facts alleged by the plaintiff were true, they would not constitute a legally valid claim for relief.
Practical Implications (6)
Q: How does Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. affect me?
This decision reinforces the heightened pleading standards required under Twombly and Iqbal, particularly in contract disputes involving "best efforts" clauses. Parties must plead specific factual allegations demonstrating a lack of reasonable effort, rather than simply asserting that As a decision from a federal appellate court, its reach is national. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.
Q: What is the practical impact of this ruling for parties entering into contracts with 'best efforts' clauses?
Parties relying on 'best efforts' clauses must meticulously document and plead specific actions taken to fulfill that obligation, rather than merely pointing to an unmet outcome.
Q: How might this decision affect businesses that license intellectual property or creative works?
Businesses licensing creative works should be aware that contractual obligations for obtaining approvals are often interpreted as 'best efforts,' requiring proof of diligent action, not just results.
Q: What should a plaintiff do differently in future cases after this ruling?
Plaintiffs should focus on pleading specific facts showing the defendant's lack of diligence or failure to take reasonable steps to meet a 'best efforts' obligation, not just the absence of the desired outcome.
Q: Who is most affected by the interpretation of 'best efforts' in this case?
The ruling primarily affects plaintiffs seeking to enforce contracts with 'best efforts' provisions, as they now face a higher pleading burden to demonstrate a breach.
Q: What are the compliance implications for companies that use 'best efforts' language in their agreements?
Companies should ensure their internal processes and documentation support a demonstrable 'best efforts' approach to contractual obligations to defend against potential breach claims.
Historical Context (2)
Q: How does this case fit into the broader legal landscape of contract interpretation?
This case reinforces the principle that courts interpret contractual language strictly and require plaintiffs to meet specific pleading standards, particularly for nuanced obligations like 'best efforts.'
Q: Are there landmark cases that established the 'best efforts' standard in contract law?
While this case applies the 'best efforts' standard, its origins trace back to common law principles of contract performance and the evolution of judicial interpretation of such clauses over time.
Procedural Questions (5)
Q: What was the docket number in Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co.?
The docket number for Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. is 23-1226; 23-7751(L). This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.
Q: Can Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. be appealed?
Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.
Q: What procedural posture brought this case before the Second Circuit?
The case came before the Second Circuit on appeal from a district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Q: What is the significance of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in this context?
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint, and its granting means the court found that the plaintiff's allegations, even if true, did not establish a valid cause of action.
Q: Could Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. have amended its complaint to try and fix the pleading deficiency?
While not explicitly stated in the summary, typically, a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) might be with or without prejudice, and a plaintiff may have an opportunity to amend their complaint to cure defects if the dismissal is without prejudice.
Cited Precedents
This opinion references the following precedent cases:
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 859 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2017)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)
- Jacobs v. Mullin, 963 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1992)
Case Details
| Case Name | Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. |
| Citation | |
| Court | Second Circuit |
| Date Filed | 2025-07-29 |
| Docket Number | 23-1226; 23-7751(L) |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Defendant Win |
| Disposition | affirmed |
| Impact Score | 15 / 100 |
| Significance | This decision reinforces the heightened pleading standards required under Twombly and Iqbal, particularly in contract disputes involving "best efforts" clauses. Parties must plead specific factual allegations demonstrating a lack of reasonable effort, rather than simply asserting that |
| Complexity | moderate |
| Legal Topics | Breach of contract, Best efforts clause interpretation, Pleading standards for breach of contract, Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Contract interpretation |
| Judge(s) | Richard J. Sullivan, Denny Chin, Joseph F. Bianco |
| Jurisdiction | federal |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This comprehensive multi-pass AI-generated analysis of Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. the Dramatic Publ'g Co. was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English. This case received our HEAVY-tier enrichment with 5 AI analysis passes covering core analysis, deep legal structure, comprehensive FAQ, multi-audience summaries, and cross-case practical intelligence.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on Breach of contract or from the Second Circuit:
-
Richardson v. Townsquare Media, Inc.
Former employee's defamation suit against employer dismissedSecond Circuit · 2026-04-23
-
Powell v. Ocwen Fin. Corp.
Mortgage Servicer Lacks Standing to ForecloseSecond Circuit · 2026-04-22
-
United States v. Brown
Second Circuit Affirms Denial of Motion to Suppress Laptop EvidenceSecond Circuit · 2026-04-21
-
United States v. Ullah
Cell phone data transmitted to third parties not protected by Fourth AmendmentSecond Circuit · 2026-04-21
-
United States v. Pence
Second Circuit: Consent to Laptop Search Was VoluntarySecond Circuit · 2026-04-10
-
Campbell v. Broome County
County employee's retaliation claims dismissed for lack of protected speech and causationSecond Circuit · 2026-04-09
-
United States v. Barrett
Second Circuit: Consent to Search Phone Was Voluntary Despite ArrestSecond Circuit · 2026-04-09
-
United States v. Manuel Zumba Mejia
Phone search incident to arrest upheld under exigent circumstancesSecond Circuit · 2026-04-09