This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Further, where the fraud was related to the purchase of plaintiff’s home, and the jury awarded plaintiff the amount she paid for the home in compensatorydamages, that award was affirmed. On appeal, the verdict for compensatorydamages was affirmed, but the punitive award was vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Plaintiff’s initial complaint was filed in May 2009 and sought $1 million in compensatorydamages and $1 million in punitive damages. Defendant was never served with this amended complaint, but the trial court entered a final judgment awarding plaintiff $3 million in total damages in August 2017. Code Ann. §
2020) 50 Cal.App.5th ” The Second District, Division Six, denied habeas relief in an unpublished opinion that expressly disagreed with a 2020 decision by the Second District, Division One ( People v. Offley (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 5th 398 from the Third District and Spikener v.
Thus, some of these cases are likely to be the last grants of October Term 2020. 20-219 , asks whether the compensatorydamages available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the statutes that incorporate its remedies, such as the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act , include compensation for emotional distress.
The busy order list was in some ways was a microcosm of the 2020-21 term as a whole. She sought compensatorydamages for “humiliation, frustration, and emotional distress.” At issue in the case is whether federal disability laws allow Cummings to recover damages for emotional distress.
After that court vacated the repeal in July 2020, the Wyoming federal court lifted the stay. On October 2, 2020, the U.S. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. On September 29, 2020, the D.C. On September 17, 2020, the D.C. Conservation Law Foundation v. Shell Oil Products US , No. 2:16-cv-00285 (D.
The First Circuit—like the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits in other climate change cases—concluded that the scope of its appellate review was limited to whether the defendants properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. On October 27, 2020, the D.C. Chernaik v. Brown , No. S066564 (Or. Rhode Island v.
involving whether punitive damages that are twice compensatorydamages, and fall within a state’s statutory punitive damages cap, are constitutionally excessive. 10, 2020, Jan. 17, 2020, Jan. 24, 2020, Feb. 21, 2020, and June 24, 2021 conferences; rehearing petition relisted after the Sept.
The magistrate judge concluded that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The court noted that the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement had approved the mine’s expansion in June 2019 but that the plaintiffs had not sought the preliminary injunction until August 2020. WildEarth Guardians v. 1:20-cv-01342 (D.
In both cases where the testimony according to James is damning, the incidents fall within the two-year statute of limitations that applies to misdemeanors in New York State. . “It Now, many say the report’s conclusion can pave the way for a criminal investigation into the accusations, leading to possible criminal charges. .
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content