Gurumurthy Kalyanaram on Lawsuits and Policies: US Supreme Court Will Consider the Right to a Beard by a Prisoner

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reports on lawsuits and policies and in this brief discusses the question on the right to a beard by a prisoner.

Holt’s lawsuit in the Arkansas federal district court has now reach the US Supreme Court for its consideration and review.

Holt, a religious prisoner in Arkansas, was denied permission to grow a beard as dictated by his faith.  Arkansas prison officials, per their manual, demanded that Holt trim his beard substantially.  Arkansas prison policy prohibits prisoners from having beards that are more than a quarter-inch long, and then only if a doctor has diagnosed them with a skin problem. Holt refuses to do comply with this policy. 

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, Reports on The Dispute between Venezuela and Gold Reserve, Inc.

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Dean and former NYIT and UT Dallas professor, and expert witness, Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reports on the Dispute between Venezuela and Gold Reserve, Inc.

This dispute was adjudicated through a mandated arbitration instead of a lawsuit in a court.  Arbitration is a more cost-effective and timely mechanism to resolve disputes, because lawsuits in courts and their adjudication can be very time-consuming and expensive.  Though arbitration can be more efficient, it also does not have the rigor of a court litigation because of the rules of evidence are not as tight in an arbitration proceeding. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit

Dr. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, Dean, Expert Witness and Former Professor NYIT and UT Dallas

Reports on Amicus Curiae Briefs in US Supreme Court

Dr. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, Dean, Expert Witness and former NYIT and UT Dallas professor Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reports on the role of amicus curiae briefs filed in support of the plaintiffs and/or defendants in lawsuits in US Supreme Court.

An amicus curiae (literally "friend of the court") is an individual who is not a party to a lawsuit but who offers information that is relevant to the lawsuit. The presentation of information to the Court may take the form of legal opinion, testimony or learned treatise (the amicus brief) and is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court.  The most popular mode of presentation is a brief.

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, Dean, Expert Witness and Former Professor NYIT and UT Dallas

Reports on the Question Is Harsh Criticism of a Commission Headed by an Indian Supreme Court Justice a Reasonable Basis for Contempt Lawsuit against the Critic?

Dr Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Former Dean and former NYIT and UT Dallas professor and expert witness and Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reports on the Indian Supreme Court Holding on Contempt Lawsuit.

Dr Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, Dean, Expert Witness and Former Professor NYIT and UT Dallas

Reports on the Accomplishments, Outcomes and Posture of the US Supreme Court in 2013-2014 Term

Dr Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Former Dean and former NYIT and UT Dallas professor Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reports on the accomplishments, outcomes and posture of the US Supreme Court in 2013-2014 Term.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert to many important issues, and adjudicated many related lawsuits in the concluded 2013-2014 Term. In resolving these important lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court tilted to more conservative posture without completely overturning any of the major landmark holdings but nevertheless denting many of them in a nuanced manner.

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram – Reports on Expert Witness Testimony in a False Claims Act/ qui tam Lawsuit

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Former Dean and former NYIT and UT Dallas professor Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reports on his expert witness testimony in a False Claims Act/qui tam lawsuit based upon my expert witness testimony, the US government decided to intervene in a qui tam lawsuit against two private educational entities.

The background to the lawsuit is as follows. Two educational entities had collaborated and designed an on-line educational program. According to the complaint, the institutes were purportedly offering degrees without completion of the requisite requirements, employing unqualified faculty and using inadequate facilities. The on-line educational program was also purportedly engaged in commissions-based student recruitment process.

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram, Dean, Expert Witness and Former Professor NYIT and UT Dallas

Reports on State of Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Decision on Collective Bargaining Rights of Public Workers

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - Former Dean and former NYIT and UT Dallas professor Gurumurthy Kalyanaram reports on State of Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Decision on Collective Bargaining Rights of Public Workers.

The Unions filed lawsuits in the State Courts against Act 10 of the State of Wisconsin.  The State of Wisconsin legislature, supported and encouraged by the Governor, passed a legislation that severely curtails the collective bargaining rights of public workers.  The legislation – Act 10 -- was passed in 2011.  Act 10 specifically limited bargaining rights to pay raises within the rate of inflation.