The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1913, provides as follows: “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Why the reference to “apportionment”? Why the reference to a census? To answer these questions, it is necessary to turn to one of the most forgotten of forgotten Supreme Court cases, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co. 158 U.S. 601 (1895). The case was forgotten because it was rendered moot by the passage of the 16th Amendment. Few today remember that the Supreme Court invalidated an income tax statute passed by Congress in the 1890s.

When we think about a U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming a criminal defendant’s right against self-incrimination, most of us think of Chief Justice Earl Warren’s famous opinion for the Court’s majority in Miranda v. Arizona, which gave us the well-known, “you have the right to remain silent” warning. However, I believe that the most eloquent statement of the reasons for the protection against self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments was made by Justice Hugo Black in his opinion for a unanimous Court in the now largely forgotten case, Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940). The case is perhaps not entirely forgotten, as anyone who reads the Miranda decision will find Chambers v. Florida cited five times.

MKCI is proud to announce that our firm has achieved Mansfield Certification for 2023–24 and is reaffirming its commitment to Mansfield Certification for 2024-2025!

In Jones v. SEC, 298 U.S. 1 (1936), the Supreme Court considered the extent of the regulatory power conferred on the newly created Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 14, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Child Victims Act (“CVA”) into law. Among other things, the CVA permitted child victims of sexual abuse until age 55 to file suit against their perpetrators for any claims that arose after the law’s enactment. For claims that had expired, the CVA also created a “lookback window” which permitted lawsuits to be filed which may have previously been dismissed or would be subject to dismissal due to an expired statute of limitation. Another key element of the CVA was the removal of the Notice of Claim requirement for asserting claims against public entities which had been necessary pursuant to the New York State General Municipal Law.

When most people think about the Supreme Court’s impact on the Watergate scandal, they think about United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), the case in which a unanimous Court ordered the Nixon Administration to turn the White House tapes over to Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski. Few people today remember another 8-0 Supreme Court decision, United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). (Justice William Rehnquist recused himself from both cases because of his recent work in the Nixon Justice Department). This 1972 case is perhaps the key to understanding the fundamental issue involved in the Watergate scandal.

The case involved an alleged slip and fall in the ladies room at a regional retailer’s location in Randolph, Massachusetts. The floor had recently been mopped and “wet floor” warning signs were posted in the hallway outside of the bathroom as well as inside the bathroom. There was also evidence that an employee orally warned Plaintiff that the floor had just been mopped. In addition, Plaintiff was captured on surveillance video walking past the warning sign that was outside of the ladies room at the time of the accident.

On February 8, 2024, MKCI Of Counsel and trial counsel Amelia Dweck obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a transportation matter in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York.

Congratulations to Stephen Toner for his well earned recognition as the 2023 American Board of Trial Advocates New York Trial Lawyer of the Year! Steve's 12 consecutive defenses verdicts set him apart from a field of accomplished lawyers and earned him the highest honor of The American Board of Trial Advocates. MKCI is proud of his dedication and commitment to our clients and colleagues.

In its recent decision in Sullivan v. Werner, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court readdressed its decade-old ruling in Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc. and held that, in a strict liability design defect case, the focus needs to remain on the product itself and not the “reasonableness” of the conduct of its manufacturer in making design choices – including compliance with industry or governmental standards – to ensure the safety of consumers and users of its products.