Government

Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context. Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners. We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to. Recordings come from the courts’ own public releases; Supreme Court timing is derived locally from the Court’s official transcript and audio.

Latest Episodes:

Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation — 9th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

A newer way to make a pain medicine reopens a decades-old royalty deal. Research Development Foundation assigned drug-delivery technology to Pacira's predecessor in 1994 for a share of revenue, and they amended the deal in 2004. Pacira later developed a larger-scale process for Exparel, a postsurgical pain medicine. After an older patent expired in 2021, Pacira sued to end the royalties. A Nevada court ruled for Pacira on both manufacturing processes and ordered RDF to return about 23 million dollars. RDF appealed. The key question is whether the 2004 amendment reaches technology developed later, or only later patent rights in technology Pacira already had then. When counsel says 'four corners,' he means the written contract itself; 'de novo' means the appeals court reads it afresh. RDF also contests the loss of a jury trial and the prejudgment-interest rate. Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Research Development Foundation (No. 25-3184) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2026/09/15/25-3184.mp3 Argument listing and date — Ninth Circuit: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/cases/streams-videos/archive?case=25-3184&hearingDate=2026-09-15 District of Nevada partial summary-judgment order: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2021cv02241/153947/152/ District of Nevada trial findings and judgment: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2021cv02241/153947/405 District of Nevada amended judgment and interest order: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2021cv02241/153947/432 Pacira parent-company SEC filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1396814/000162828026052635/pcrx-20260630.htm District-court filing identifying RDF counsel: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2%3A2021cv02241/153947/107/ Norton Rose Fulbright lawyer profile: https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/news/751e44a9/two-norton-rose-fulbright-dallas-partners-inducted-into-the-american-board-of-trial-advocates Kirkland and Ellis lawyer profile: https://www.kirkland.com/lawyers/o/oquinn-john-c Kirkland and Ellis case account: https://www.kirkland.com/lawyers/k/kane-ryan Nevada Supreme Court on contract interpretation: https://nvcourts.gov/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/11466/135_nevada_reports_pages_269-301.pdf

Cozy Inn, Incorporated, et al. v. City of Salina, Kansas — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

A UFO-and-burger mural outside a Kansas hamburger shop brings a First Amendment dispute to the Tenth Circuit. In 2023, owner Stephen Howard commissioned an outside-wall mural at his Cozy Inn restaurant in Salina. City officials classified the display as a sign, said it exceeded their size limits, and stopped the painting. Howard sought a permit; the city left it on hold while discussing changes to its code. A district judge ruled that the sign-or-mural distinction and permit delay violated the First Amendment, and the city appealed. Prior restraint means government approval before someone may speak or paint. The question now is whether the code regulates displays by their message and whether the city has enough evidence to limit signs while leaving murals alone. Content-based speech rules generally face strict scrutiny; content-neutral ones face intermediate scrutiny, and that distinction drives the argument. Cozy Inn, Incorporated, et al. v. City of Salina, Kansas (No. 25-3225) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-3225.mp3 Argument listing and date — Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F16%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F16%2F2026 District of Kansas memorandum and order: https://ecf.ksd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2024cv1027-136= City of Salina appellate brief: https://kansasjusticeinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/18-Salinas-Opening-Brief.pdf Cozy Inn and Stephen Howard appellate brief: https://kansasjusticeinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/21-Cozy-Response-Brief.pdf City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising, Supreme Court opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/596us1r22_4315.pdf Fairfield and Woods counsel directory: https://www.fwlaw.com/attorneys Kansas Justice Institute counsel directory: https://kansasjusticeinstitute.org/about-us/staff/

Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Corrosion Monitoring Services, Inc. — 7th Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

Corrosion Monitoring Services seeks insurance coverage for a customer's lawsuit and expenses from its owner's criminal case. The company inspected power-plant air heaters; customer Ingredion sued over alleged damage to its equipment. Prosecutors separately accused company owner Steve Turner of deliberately damaging tubes to win repair work; he disputed the accusation. Turner later pleaded guilty to misprision—concealing knowledge of a felony—and obstruction, not to a property-damage charge. Cincinnati Insurance won a district-court ruling that it owed no coverage, and the company appealed. Illinois's eight-corners rule generally compares the civil complaint with the insurance policy to decide whether the insurer must defend. The appeal asks how that rule applies to Ingredion's lawsuit and whether the company's criminal-case payments are covered losses. Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Corrosion Monitoring Services, Inc. (No. 26-1082) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/nv.26-1082.26-1082_09_23_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 United States v. Turner, federal criminal-court order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-kywd-4_19-cr-00026/pdf/USCOURTS-kywd-4_19-cr-00026-0.pdf United States v. Turner, court order identifying the Ingredion plant: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-kywd-4_19-cr-00026/pdf/USCOURTS-kywd-4_19-cr-00026-2.pdf Tennessee Valley Authority Inspector General report on Turner's plea: https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/2021-11/semi71.pdf District-court coverage ruling report: https://www.law360.com/insurance-authority/articles/2423214/repair-co-not-owed-coverage-for-damage-scheme-suits Seventh Circuit appeal docket and counsel appearances: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/26-1082 Seventh Circuit precedent explaining Illinois's eight-corners rule: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Path=Y2024%2FD04-29%2FC%3A23-1662%3AJ%3ALee%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A3202720%3AS%3A0&Submit=Display Illinois appellate precedent on the eight-corners rule and exceptions: https://law.justia.com/cases/illinois/court-of-appeals-first-appellate-district/2024/1-22-1396.html Federal misprision statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title18-section4 Moirano Gorman Kenny — Michael Moirano: https://mgklaw.com/contact/ Litchfield Cavo — Michael Baniak: https://www.litchfieldcavo.com/attorneys/michael-p-baniak/

Mid Vermont Christian School v. Bouchey — 2d Cir. (Sep 22, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

Mid Vermont Christian School and families seek public tuition payments while their lawsuit proceeds. Vermont towns without high schools pay for students at eligible public or independent schools. After Mid Vermont briefly qualified, Act 73 added location and prior-enrollment rules, including a 25-percent threshold; the school was disqualified. The school says the changes effectively exclude religious schools; Vermont calls them neutral, cost-conscious education reform. A district judge denied temporary relief. The appeal asks whether exemptions for other schools make the rules unequal under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The lawyers call this general applicability: whether comparable religious and secular choices face the same restrictions, judged against Vermont's stated goals. Mid Vermont Christian School v. Bouchey (No. 26-1416) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 22, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/26-1416.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html District of Vermont preliminary-injunction order (May 12, 2026): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vtd-2_23-cv-00652/pdf/USCOURTS-vtd-2_23-cv-00652-2.pdf Vermont town-tuition statute, 16 V.S.A. § 828: https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/16/021/00828 Alliance Defending Freedom case history: https://adflegal.org/case/mid-vermont-christian-school-v-saunders/ Alliance Defending Freedom counsel and hearing notice: https://adflegal.org/press-release/christian-school-family-barred-from-vts-benefit-programs-appeal-to-2nd-circuit/ Government filing identifying Sam Stratton as a Vermont assistant attorney general: https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/governor/documents/petition%20for%20review_endangerment_final.pdf U.S. Supreme Court, Tandon v. Newsom: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf U.S. Supreme Court, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/508/520 Second Circuit appeal docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/26-1416

Helmig v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado — 10th Cir. (Sep 17, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears Detlev Helmig's appeal over his firing from the University of Colorado. He worked as an atmospheric scientist at CU Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research before the university terminated him in 2020. The university cited alleged conflict-of-interest and fiscal-ethics violations; Helmig disputes those accusations. He sued, saying university policies gave him a fixed-term appointment and a chance to be heard before termination. The district court ruled for the university without a trial, finding he had no protected right to continued employment. The appeal turns on whether his continued work and the research-professor policy made him more than an at-will employee, whose job could otherwise end without cause. Helmig v. Board of Regents of the University of Colorado (No. 25-1294) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 17, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-1294.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F26%2F2026 Tenth Circuit appeal docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-1294 District of Colorado magistrate judge's 2023 recommendation: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-00836/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cv-00836-0.pdf District of Colorado summary-judgment order (June 30, 2025): https://app.midpage.ai/document/helmig-v-board-of-regents-1000444318695 Colorado Supreme Court on promissory estoppel: https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2016/15sc87.html Plaskov Prescott & Moore attorney listing: https://ppmfirm.com/about-us/ University of Colorado counsel directory: https://www.cu.edu/universitycounsel/attorneys-staff

Merrill v. Seagraves — 10th Cir. (Sep 14, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit hears cross-appeals from a 2020 traffic stop in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Officer Jonathan Seagraves stopped Ryan Merrill for an expired tag and a faulty brake light. After a dispute about how far to open his window, Merrill drove away; police followed him to a house, where he ran onto a porch. Seagraves used a Taser twice, roughly fifteen seconds apart. Merrill says the first shock left him unable to comply with officers' commands; Seagraves says he reasonably perceived continued resistance. Merrill sued for excessive force. The district court dismissed his claim over the first Taser use but let the claim over the second proceed. Seagraves will seek qualified immunity for the second use, a protection that depends in part on whether a violated right was clearly established. Merrill will ask the appeals court to review the first use as well. Merrill v. Seagraves (No. 25-7060) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 14, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-7060.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=08%2F01%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F26%2F2026 E.D. Okla. summary-judgment order (June 30, 2025): https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oklahoma/okedce/6%3A2022cv00007/32291/109 Tenth Circuit's earlier Merrill v. Fell opinion (December 21, 2023): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110972552.pdf Tenth Circuit cross-appeal docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-7060 Tenth Circuit precedent explaining pendent appellate jurisdiction: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110699363.pdf

Adam Ellicson v. Oden Machinery, Inc. — 7th Cir. (Sep 15, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

The Seventh Circuit hears Adam Ellicson's appeal against his former employer, Oden Machinery, and its executive Jeff Mantyk. NJM Packaging offered Ellicson a new sales job. Oden then sent NJM a letter saying Ellicson's noncompete barred him from competing nationwide, although the agreement limited that ban to territories assigned to him. NJM stopped the hiring process, and Ellicson sued for interference with his prospective job. The district court dismissed the claim against Mantyk and later granted Oden summary judgment, finding its letter a good-faith effort to protect contractual rights. Ellicson will ask the appeals court to let a jury consider whether Oden knowingly overstated the restriction and whether Mantyk can be personally liable. Adam Ellicson v. Oden Machinery, Inc. (No. 25-3181) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued September 15, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/ch.25-3181.25-3181_09_15_2026.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/oralArguments/oar.jsp?amonth=09%2F2026&aMonth=List+case%28s%29 N.D. Ill. summary-judgment opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1%3A2022cv02113/414466/126/0.pdf N.D. Ill. motion-to-dismiss order: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/649bb76e32898b72d5d148fb Seventh Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca7/25-3181

Fishman v. City of New Rochelle — 2d Cir. (Sep 24, 2026) Sep 26, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears Fishman v. City of New Rochelle. When a scheduled supervised visit broke down in December 2018, Marc Fishman went to New Rochelle police to complain. He says cognitive and hearing disabilities made it hard to explain the family-court orders, and that police excluded Isabel Bolivar, whom he describes as his disability aide, before arresting him for violating an order of protection. The City disputes that he requested a specific accommodation and says he communicated clearly. Fishman sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. The district court found that a jury could conclude he had a qualifying disability, and that the parties genuinely disputed whether police denied an accommodation. But it entered summary judgment for the City because Fishman had not shown that any denial caused greater injury or indignity than other arrestees. Caner Demirayak of the Law Office of Caner Demirayak represents Fishman and will ask for a trial. Lalit Loomba of the Quinn Law Firm represents the City and will respond that officers understood Fishman's account and that any missing accommodation did not cause his claimed injuries. Fishman v. City of New Rochelle (No. 25-423) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 24, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-423.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html S.D.N.Y. summary-judgment opinion: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/67971c76c2c9f357d0303f2c S.D.N.Y. earlier opinion: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2019cv00265/508106/38/0.pdf Appellant's filed brief — party-posted copy: https://newrochellepoliceabuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/fishman-plaintiff-appellant-brief-10.6.25-1.pdf Second Circuit docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca2/25-423 Caner Demirayak — American Bar Association: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/disabilityrights/initiatives_awards/spotlight/demirayak-spotlight/ Caner Demirayak — Supreme Court filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-6338/302917/20240312162633596_44923%20pdf%20Demirayak%20br.pdf Lalit K. Loomba — Quinn Law Firm: https://quinnlawny.com/our-attorneys/ Lalit K. Loomba — 2026 federal court opinion: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7%3A2025cv04531/643484/24/

In re Kwok — 2d Cir. (Sep 23, 2026) Sep 25, 2026

Show notes

The Second Circuit hears In re Kwok. Ho Wan Kwok filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2022. Greenwich Land, a Delaware company nominally owned by Hing Chi Ngok, held 373 Taconic Road, a house Kwok used as his bankruptcy mailing address. Trustee Luc Despins said Kwok's associates funded and ran the company while Ngok knew little about its finances or operations. The bankruptcy court found the company was Kwok's alter ego and its assets belonged to the estate; the district court affirmed. This appeal asks whether those courts improperly resolved factual and evidentiary disputes, or whether the undisputed record showed Kwok's control. Two days after the argument, the Second Circuit affirmed, finding any possible law-of-the-case error harmless and the evidence of Kwok's control overwhelming and uncontroverted. Stephen Kindseth of Zeisler and Zeisler represents Greenwich Land and Hing Chi Ngok. He will argue that the bankruptcy judge discounted evidence of Ngok's ownership and improperly resolved facts and evidentiary questions. In re Kwok (No. 25-2742) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 23, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/audio/25-2742.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/oral_arguments.html Bankruptcy Court summary-judgment order: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ctb-5_23-ap-05005/pdf/USCOURTS-ctb-5_23-ap-05005-0.pdf District of Connecticut appellate decision: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/connecticut/ctdce/3%3A2024cv01185/160376/27/0.pdf Second Circuit's related 2026 In re Kwok opinion: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/24-2504/24-2504-2026-04-06.html Law360 Bankruptcy Authority report on the argument: https://www.mlexwatch.com/bankruptcy-authority/large-cap/articles/2529086/2nd-circ-hints-7-25m-mansion-sale-stands-in-guo-s-ch-11 Second Circuit summary order affirming the judgment: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/SUM/25-2742_so.pdf Second Circuit decision search: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions.html Stephen M. Kindseth — Zeisler & Zeisler: https://www.zeislaw.com/attorney?name=Stephen_M.+Kindseth Nicholas Bassett — Paul Hastings: https://www.paulhastings.com/practice-areas/complex-litigation-and-arbitration

Chilcoat v. San Juan County — 10th Cir. (Sep 16, 2026) Sep 25, 2026

Show notes

The Tenth Circuit returns to Rosalie Chilcoat's civil-rights suit against San Juan County, Utah. In 2017, a rancher found a corral gate closed and accused Chilcoat, an environmental activist, and her husband of endangering his cattle. A sheriff's sergeant initially concluded there was little evidence of a crime. The county attorney charged two misdemeanors, then added two felonies after county commissioners, the sheriff, and the prosecutor allegedly discussed Chilcoat in a closed meeting for which the county kept no record. A Utah appellate court later rejected probable cause, and the remaining charges were dismissed. Chilcoat says the county commission encouraged the prosecution to retaliate for her environmental advocacy. The Tenth Circuit earlier held that an amended claim was plausible and allowed discovery. After discovery, the district judge granted summary judgment to the county, finding no evidence of an official county decision. This appeal asks whether the closed meeting, missing record, timing, and one commissioner's hostility provide enough circumstantial evidence for a jury—or only speculation. Chilcoat v. San Juan County (No. 25-4157) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, argued September 16, 2026. Sources: Argument audio — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (public domain, 17 U.S.C. § 105): https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/oralarguments/25-4157.mp3 Argument listing — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/oralargument/search-results?field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmin%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F16%2F2026&field_oa_hearing_date_value%5Bmax%5D%5Bdate%5D=09%2F25%2F2026 Chilcoat v. San Juan County — Tenth Circuit 2022 opinion: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010110714818.pdf Federal district-court summary-judgment order: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/4%3A2019cv00027/114455/154/0.pdf Tenth Circuit appellate docket: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca10/25-4157 Courthouse News Service report on the appeal: https://www.courthousenews.com/colorado-woman-asks-10th-circuit-to-revive-fight-over-political-retaliation-in-utah/ Salt Lake Tribune report on the underlying dispute: https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/04/24/did-san-juan-county-officials-orchestrate-charges-against-public-land-activist-over-closing-corral-gate/ Karra J. Porter — Christensen & Jensen: https://cjlaw.com/attorneys/karra-j-porter/ R. Blake Hamilton — Dentons: https://www.dentons.com/en/blake-hamilton Tenth Circuit spoliation standard: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01019546028.pdf

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Oral Arguments, with Context

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected