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
On 21 August 2022, China Justice Observer released the 2022 version of the List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments. The full version of the 2022 List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments is available here. Written by Dr. Meng Yu and Dr. Guodong Du, co-founders of China Justice Observer*.
Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. __, __ [142 S.Ct. An earlier published opinion in the case had reversed an award, including $2,500,000 in punitivedamages, against an insurance company regarding the sale of the company’s annuity, because, the appellate court concluded, the person who sold the annuity was not the company’s agent.
But Akin Gump, in its complaint for damages and injunctive relief filed in the District of Columbia Superior Court and in a petition to the U.S. 2022 CA 004744 B, filed in the Civil Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Patent and Trademark Office, claims that Bill Synthesis was actually invented by Agnello.
They asserted five causes of action: a claim under NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act; breaches of the 1851 Fort Laramie Treaty, the 1855 Lame Bull Treaty, the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty; and a failure to adhere to the Department of the Interior’s tribal consultation policies. Adorers of the Blood of Christ v.
On November 22, 2022, sixteen municipalities of Puerto Rico filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Puerto Rico seeking to hold coal, oil, and gas companies liable for losses resulting from storms during the 2017 hurricane season and ongoing economic losses since that time. . By Korey Silverman-Roati and Maria Antonia Tigre.
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