Personal jurisdiction continues to be a surprisingly evolving area of procedural law despite the U.S. Supreme Court having first addressed it more than three quarters of a century ago in Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Washington. 326 U.S. 310 (1945). The modern evolution of the concept has continued with important U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011), in 2011, Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014), in 2014 and, more recently, BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. 402 (2017), in 2017. And, as more cases apply these SCOTUS decisions at the state and federal trial-court level each year, the nuances grow in California and elsewhere.

On October 12, 2022, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that will shape the way artists across disciplines create and protect their copyrighted works. The case, Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, involves a 1981 portrait of Prince taken by renowned rock and roll photographer Lynn Goldsmith. In 1984, the late American visual artist, film director, and producer Andy Warhol “transformed” the portrait into a set of 16 silkscreens and sketches, referred to as the “Prince Series.” The Supreme Court will soon decide whether, for the purpose of determining whether an accused work is protected by the Copyright Act’s fair use defense, a work of art that conveys a different meaning or message from its source material is “transformative,” or whether courts can even consider the accused work’s meaning where it recognizably derives from its source material.

The proposed FTC rule would broadly ban employers from imposing non-competes on their workers. The rule, once it becomes final, would supersede California state law, which allows non-competes in limited situations, including when necessary to protect the employer’s trade secrets.

Under current California law, the economic loss rule does not apply to a plaintiff’s claim for fraudulent inducement by concealment. However, the law may change as the California Supreme Court recently granted the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ request for certification of this precise question.

California Proposition 65 warning is not required for water pipes when the exposure to marijuana smoke is only an indirect consequence depending on how a consumer chooses to use the product.