Upon his return north, he joined the New York office of Davis Polk & Wardwell as a lateral, during which he successfully prosecuted and first chaired
a federal jury trial involving claims of excessive force under Section 1983 (Ruffin v. Fuller).
Not exact matches
To the fullest extent permitted by law, by your access to the Sites, you agree that: (i) any claim, dispute or cause of action regarding the Sites or these Terms shall be brought individually (NOT AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION) in the
federal or state courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A
JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs
involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York).
Mr. Donaldson's practice
involves a broad range of commercial litigation matters, including representing clients in state and
federal courts, including
jury trials, as well as mediation and arbitration, and appeals.
Representative matters include civil
jury trials and bench
trials in both state and
federal court; complex civil litigation
involving the energy industry, including defense of class actions; condemnations and surface damage disputes; and appellate work.
Represented a client in
federal jury trial against industrial valve counterfeiters
involving the illegal sourcing of valves from Iraq.
These include: United States v. Resendiz - Ponce, which presents the question whether the omission of an element from a
federal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture o
federal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the
Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture o
Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case
involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the
jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair
trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture on them.
z4 v. Microsoft and Autodesk —
Jury Trial & Appeal to
Federal Circuit Represented z4 in a patent infringement case
involving two patents relating to technology for reducing software piracy.
Mr. Nelson has practiced in
federal courts all across the United States, and his litigation experience
involves all aspects of litigation from pre-litigation analysis and negotiation through
jury trial, including managing discovery and disputes, taking and defending depositions, selecting and preparing fact and expert witnesses, preparing and arguing dispositive and non-dispositive motions, preparing and arguing claim construction positions and briefing, and developing case strategies regarding the infringement, validity, and enforceability of patents.
Mr Patterson's 45 years of litigation experience thoughout State and
Federal courts
involved over 100
jury trials to verdict and numerous other non-
jury matters to resolution.
He has tried over a dozen
federal and state
jury trials in the past 10 years
involving claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
Securing
jury verdicts in favor of shipowners in state and
federal court
trials in Wisconsin and Michigan
involving cases in which the plaintiffs alleged career - ending injuries.