- August Edition of GFR Now Available.
- SEC Risk Alert for Municipal Advisors Highlights Key Compliance Issues: Ballard Spahr
- Inflation Reduction Act: Implications for Solar and Wind Tax Credit Equity Markets – Jones Walker
- NFMA Advanced Seminar on Public Power.
- CDFA Infrastructure Finance Learning Series: Reviewing the Guidance
- Fifth Circuit Condemns Texas Transmission ROFR Law on Constitutional Grounds: Bracewell
- First Circuit Holds that Fifth Amendment Takings Claims Must be Paid in Full: Dechert
- And finally, You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means. is brought to us this week by Frein v. Pennsylvania State Police, in which Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas began his opinion as follows, “Although police may seize potential evidence using a warrant, they may not keep it forever. Yet they did that here.” Forever, you say? And yet here you are adjudicating a case about the return of that very evidence. Hmm. But let’s not let that distract us from the heartwarming tale of the parents whose son murdered a state trooper and later sued for the return of the firearms seized in the ensuing investigation. Who could possibly have guessed that there could be violence brewing in a household containing, “forty-six guns belonging to the parents: twenty-five rifles, nineteen pistols, and two shotguns.” Although only two in number, at least the shotguns had each other.