Contact our office today to schedule a consultation with a member of our exceptional legal team.
We look forward to speaking with you about your individual legal situation.

(800) 209-2608

Morris E. Fischer

Attorney at Law

Air Rights Center, North Tower
4550 Montgomery Avenue
Suite 601N
Bethesda, MD 20814
(800) 209-2608 phone
(301) 469-3499 fax
Map and Directions

Free 15 Minute Initial Consultation*

Immediate Appointments Available

Call Our Office!
(800) 209-2608

Contact Us
morris@morrisfischerlaw.com

LEGAL NEWS

News

Business

[03/10] Greek strike to shut down services Thursday
[03/10] Oligarch wins suit against Russian broadcaster
[03/10] World stocks up modestly; pound takes another hit
[03/10] Nationalized UK bank Northern Rock back in profit
[03/10] Meatpackers say inspection cuts are shortsighted

More...

Civil Rights

[03/10] Female World War II aviators to be honored
[03/10] DC courthouse busy with same-sex applications
[03/10] Assisted suicide group preparing for Ga. trial
[03/10] Ga. judge's order dismisses claims in King dispute
[03/10] Dozen same-sex couple tie knot in DC

More...

Employment Practices

[03/10] Unemployment benefit cuts, higher taxes projected
[03/10] Senate to pass jobless aid, business tax breaks
[03/09] Senate to take up unemployment insurance extension
[03/08] Allergan CEO got $11.1M in compensation in 2009
[03/08] Court will decide if NASA checks can continue

More...

Labor

[03/10] Ex-Marine sues Calif. city to get back police job
[03/10] NJ unemployment rate down slightly in January
[03/10] Calif.'s unemployment rate 5th highest in nation
[03/10] Nebraska jobless rate 4.6 pct in January
[03/10] Highlights of Senate jobless aid bill

More...

Labor and Management Relations

[03/10] Unemployment benefit cuts, higher taxes projected
[03/10] Senate to pass jobless aid, business tax breaks
[03/10] Highlights of Senate jobless aid bill
[03/09] Presidents of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO and PSEA Sign Historic Labor Solidarity Partnership Allowing Greater Unity and Strength Between the Unions
[03/09] Jobless aid measure clears Senate hurdle

More...

Outsourcing

[12/09]
[12/08]
[12/04]
[12/04]
[12/03]

More...

White Collar Crime

[03/08] Tax season bringing out the fraud artists
[03/03] 10th guilty plea in Galleon insider trading case
[02/25] Former Madoff operations exec arrested
[02/24] Fla. money manager due in court on fraud charge
[02/24] 3 Google execs convicted of privacy violations

More...

Personal Injury

[03/10] Feds probe Toyota Prius crash in NYC suburb
[03/10] CDC uses shopper-card data to trace salmonella
[03/10] Workers stuck on open drawbridge in Fla. rescued
[03/09] SUV backs into Mich. school; 6 students injured
[03/09] Superintendent accidentally fires gun during class

More...

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[03/10] American Signature, Inc. v. US
In proceedings involving an importer of furniture that is subject to a 2005 antidumping duty order on certain entries of wooden bedroom furniture from China, a decision of the Court of International Trade denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is reversed as plaintiff has satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction, and therefore, the Court of International Trade is directed to grant the preliminary injunction prohibiting Customs or Commerce from taking any action to liquidate or reliquidate import entries that are the subject of this action.

[03/10] Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd.
In an appeal from a district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendant from proceeding with an arbitration initiated against plaintiff before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the order is affirmed where the "serious questions" standard for assessing a movant's likelihood of success on the merits remains valid in the wake of recent Supreme Court cases, and neither the district court's assessment of the facts nor its application of the law supported a finding of abuse of discretion.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[03/10] Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd.
In an appeal from a district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendant from proceeding with an arbitration initiated against plaintiff before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the order is affirmed where the "serious questions" standard for assessing a movant's likelihood of success on the merits remains valid in the wake of recent Supreme Court cases, and neither the district court's assessment of the facts nor its application of the law supported a finding of abuse of discretion.

[03/09] In re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Secs. Litig.
In a securities class action alleging that defendants fraudulently accounted for a transaction, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation because their expert's testimony did not suffice to draw the requisite causal connection between the information in the article at issue and the fraud alleged in the complaint; and 2) the generalized investor reaction of concern causing a temporary share price decline was far too tenuously connected -- indeed, by a metaphoric thread -- to the transaction to support liability.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[03/10] US v. Fisher
Defendant's firearm possession conviction is affirmed where police had probable cause to detain defendant because they were responding to a 911 call late at night, in a high crime area, with every reason to suspect gunplay, and the only vehicle at the scene looked as if it was about to depart.

[03/09] US v. York
Defendant's conviction and sentence for arson and carrying a destructive device are affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence that the fire at issue was intentionally set; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial, because defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by a jury note requesting to hear again defendant's confession; and 3) evidence that defendant had harmed his girlfriend went to issues other than defendant's character because it explained that she withheld information from the police due to her fear of defendant's threats.

More...

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[03/10] Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd.
In an appeal from a district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendant from proceeding with an arbitration initiated against plaintiff before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the order is affirmed where the "serious questions" standard for assessing a movant's likelihood of success on the merits remains valid in the wake of recent Supreme Court cases, and neither the district court's assessment of the facts nor its application of the law supported a finding of abuse of discretion.

[03/09] Kuhn Constr. Co. v. Diamond State Port Corp.
In an action to enjoin an arbitration initiated by defendant based on a referee clause in the agreement between the parties, grant of defendant's motions to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration is reversed where the referee clause, on these facts, did not clearly require arbitration.

More...

Family Law

[03/05] People v. Warwick
Conviction of defendant of child abuse and neglect and jury's true finding on the enhancement that she personally inflicted great bodily injury on her child is affirmed as, when she gave birth to her son in her bedroom and concealed the birth causing severe injuries, defendant inflicted great bodily injury on her child.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[03/10] Primiano v. Cook
In an action against the manufacturer of an artificial elbow, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the exclusion of plaintiff's expert's evidence was error as plaintiff's expert, with a sufficient basis in education and experience, testified that the artificial joint "failed to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in light of its nature and intended function," which was enough to assist a trier of fact.

[03/10] Cameron v. N.Y.
In an action for false arrest and malicious prosecution, judgment for defendant-officers is reversed where: 1) prosecutors' opinions as to probable cause and complaining officers' credibility are irrelevant in virtually all cases involving claims of malicious prosecution; and 2) the introduction of such evidence was not harmless because it provided strong external validation for propositions that otherwise would have come in only from the defendants' mouths.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Tough, Aggressive and Vigorous Representation.