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
The US Supreme Courtruled Friday in US v. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, criticized the lower courtruling , which called the law “overbroad,” saying: Properly interpreted, this provision forbids only the intentional solicitation or facilitation of certain unlawful acts. .”
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday over a challenge to Louisiana’s recently redrawn voting map and its two Black-majority districts. But this has became life as usual for the states under this Court’s voting cases.” It is unclear how the court will rule in the case.
The US Supreme Court declined on Thursday to disturb a federal statute governing the adoption and foster proceedings for Indigenous children in the US. The court issued three findings in its Thursday decision. The court first heard oral arguments in the case back in November 2022.
Share The Supreme Court on Monday morning added one new case to its docket for the 2022-23 term, a technical dispute over the binding nature of the statute of limitations for a federal property law. A lower courtruled that the landowners filed their lawsuit too late and that the statute of limitations is jurisdictional.
Amnesty International Kenya praised a High Courtruling Thursday which found that 11 police commanders and officers have a case to answer in connection with the death of baby Samantha Pendo and other victims of the 2017 post-election violence.
The German Federal Court of Justice rejected former Syrian senior intelligence officer Anwar Raslan’s appeal against his crimes against humanity conviction on Monday. Raslan also claimed that there was a violation of substantive law, but the 2022 judgment was found not to have any legal error. Raslan entered Germany in 2014.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the 30-day time limit for taxpayers to seek review from the Tax Court of “collection due process” determinations is a nonjurisdictional deadline that can be equitably tolled. On January 12, 2022, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case. Vaello-Madero , Brown v.
The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado struck down the state’s Child Sexual Abuse Accountability Act (CSAAA) on Tuesday, ruling that the law violates the state constitution and is “unconstitutionally retrospective.” M árquez authored the opinion of the court. ” Justice Monica M.
The courtruled that the prosecution had undertaken extensive efforts to inform Kony of the charges against him, including large-scale media campaigns in Uganda and neighboring countries, as well as engaging with relevant stakeholders and communities.
McDonough , a case that the court already rescheduled seven times last term, and which involves the construction of a statute providing disability pay for members of the military. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, by a divided vote , deferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs construction of the statute under Chevron U.S.A.,
10, 2022, a judge in the Western District of Texas struck down the federal law that prohibits access to guns for people subject to domestic violence protection orders. He did this based on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Courtruling, NYSRPA v. But now, the U.S.
Act”), was enacted in 2022. HB 1, enacted in 2021, created new criminal penalties for protestors, prohibited state grants to any government entity that attempted to defund the police and denied bond to anyone who participated in a disorderly assembly until their first court appearance. The statute is set to take effect on July 1.
2022-1194, 2022-1208, 2022-1246 (Fed. The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court judgment finding that Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”) submitted by generic drug manufacturers did not infringe patents rights held by H. The statute’s patent specific.” Lundbeck A/S v.
Do not forget your state or national bar journal, especially to help you keep up with the lastest changes to statutes and case law, as well as courtrule changes! You can also find great information at your local or state paralegal organization and its newsletter. As always, if I can give you a hand, please give a shout!
Addressing whether a Stamps -like remand is appropriate, the court today finds ambiguity in determining whether the Legislature in the probation statute amendment “intend[ed] to exercise its own authority to change the terms of an existing plea bargain to reduce the length of an agreed-upon term of probation.”
On Friday, the justices agreed to decide whether the Nollan / Dolan test applies to a California man’s challenge to a development fee, or whether – as a California appeals courtruled – the fee is instead immune from such review because it was authorized by legislation. A federal appeals courtruled that Fikre’s case was not moot.
On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an 8-1 decision in Viking River Cruises, Inc. Moriana, holding that an employee's individual claims for penalties.
Where plaintiffs alleged that “church entities were negligent regarding the sexual abuse of minors” by a clergyman, and the allegations included claims of fraudulent concealment through an investigation that was actually a “whitewash,” dismissal based on the statute of limitations was reversed. W2021-00353-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 1837455 (Tenn.
The UK Supreme court based its holding upon the text of the UK Patents Act of 1977 as it reached the same ultimate conclusion as the Federal Circuit in Thaler v. 2022), cert. Vidal , 43 F.4th 4th 1207 (Fed. denied , 143 S. 1783 (2023). Thaler’s entitlement to its creations in breach of section 13(2)(b). Rather, in Thaler v.
M2021-00262-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 202641 (Tenn. 24, 2022), plaintiff was walking on a sidewalk in a residential neighborhood when she tripped and fell over a sewer cleanout cap that protruded from the middle of the sidewalk. In Garamella v. City of Lebanon , No. internal citation omitted). Code Ann. § This opinion was released 1.5
M2021-00487-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 1404357 (Tenn. May 4, 2022), plaintiffs filed this pro se action that revolved around a newly built home they bought in August 2017 that had allegedly developed severe mold issues. In Simpkins v. John Maher Builders, Inc. , Code Ann. § 28-3-105.) On appeal, dismissal was partially reversed.
by Dennis Crouch In a recent nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district courtruling ordering the correction of inventorship for U.S. 2022-2170 (Fed. ”) Patent law does not have a specific statute of limitations associated with claims to correct inventorship. Tube-Mac Indus.,
Share Two years after the courtruled that a disparity in bankrupt debtors’ fees between judicial districts was impermissible, the justices on Friday ruled 6-3 that charging equal fees going forward is an adequate remedy for that disparity. By statute, the U.S.
The court’s opinion by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero follows the general rule that, unless the Legislature provides otherwise, statutes apply prospectively, and the opinion doesn’t invoke the corollary of In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d ” The court reverses the Sixth District’s 2-1 published opinion.
E2021-01156-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 2866006 (Tenn. July 21, 2022), plaintiffs were the adult daughters of decedent and defendant was the widow of decedent. On appeal, this ruling was reversed. Conversion is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Lewis , No. Code Ann. §
When appealing a trial court’s order dismissing or refusing to dismiss a case under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), the appeal “must be filed within thirty days of the entry of that order.”. E2021-00812-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 14199150 (Tenn. In Laferney v. Livesay , No. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
. § 56-7-135(a) creates a rebuttable presumption that a person who signs an insurance contract “has read, understands, and accepts the contents of such document,” and plaintiff did not rebut that presumption, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff’s claims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation.
Here, first the conflict-of-law issue to be dealt with is the source of law that is to be used to determine the relevant statute for recourse. In its decision of 3 March 2021, the Federal Court of Justice endorsed an alternative approach based on Article 19 of the Rome II Regulation and Article 7 para.
W2020-00917-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 589926 (Tenn. 28, 2022), plaintiff was the brother of a patient who had died after a brief stay at defendant nursing home. The Court explained that it was “not free to disregard the discussion in Owens directly addressing the issue before [it].” In Welch v. National Health Corp. , 3d 876 (Tenn.
W2021-1422-COA-R9-CV, 2022 WL 3715056 (Tenn. 29, 2022), plaintiff alleged that he was injured by defendants’ medical negligence on July 5, 2019. In Moxley v. AMISUB Inc. D/B/A Saint Frances Hospital , No.
In the year ending June 30, 2020 (the last period for which information is publicly available) the High Court was asked to accept review in 569 cases. These are the cases where the Court has the discretion whether to hear the case or allow the lower courtruling to stand. Code Ann. § 20-12-119(c).
The Supreme Court has held that the federal government assumes a trust obligation to assert reserved water rights for Native tribes only when it “ expressly accepts those responsibilities by statute ,” by regulation, or by treaty with a tribe. CVSG: 9/21/2022. CVSG: 9/23/2022. relisted after the Oct. 28 conference).
M2021-00878-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 4490980 (Tenn. 28, 2022), plaintiff was a real estate professional involved in some capacity with Durham Farms, which was a large residential community. This ruling was affirmed in part and reversed in part on appeal. In Charles v. McQueen , No. The TPPA, Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-101 et seq.,
Where plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in his defamation case before defendants filed their petition to dismiss under the TPPA, the trial court erred by granting defendants’ petition for dismissal and awarding them attorneys’ fees and sanctions after plaintiff’s nonsuit. M2020-01651-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 17334223 (Tenn.
E2021-00881-COA-R9-CV, 2022 WL 1117453 (Tenn. April 14, 2022), plaintiff filed an HCLA claim against several defendants, including the State of Tennessee as the employer of Dr. Landry, who was allegedly negligent. The Court continued its analysis by pointing out that one of its prior decisions supported dismissal in this case.
If the Supreme Court agrees with the previous rulings in Moore, it could have hundreds of different consequences for taxpayers. [16] 19] Lastly, not only would a Supreme Courtruling striking down §965 have tax implications for foreign investment income tax, it could also have potential impacts on a variety of other U.S.
In Manhattan, the Housing Court took a more direct approach to the ERAP issue when applying a textualist review of the law. [17] 17] The court asserted, “The statute does not provide the Housing Court with the authority to determine whether a person is eligible for ERAP assistance.” [18] Supreme Court in Chrysafis v.
The Supreme Court’s denial of Purdue’s request for a 30-day extension serves as a reminder that even in cases involving significant legal questions, the Court expects parties to follow its procedural rules and provide strong justifications for any deviations. 2022-1482 (Fed. Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
The primary issue in both cases is whether the Court should reverse its decision in Grutter v. Another provision of the statute, however, also allows inmates to collaterally challenge their convictions outside this process through a traditional habeas action under 28 U.S.C. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
Apple brought an action against the USPTO Director Vidal in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701– 706, challenging the Director’s instructions to the Board regarding exercise of discretion in IPR institution decisions. Vidal , 2022-1249, — F.4th The district courtruled that 35 U.S.C. §
M2021-00314-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 1633552 (Tenn. May 24, 2022) , plaintiff suffered antibiotic tendonitis, a traumatic rupture to a tendon in her ankle, and chronic tendonitis after being prescribed medication for a cough that had an adverse reaction with the steroids she had been taking for years. In Breithaupt v.
Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th The Sixth District’s 2-1 published Burgos opinion held the statute is retroactive and reversed second degree robbery convictions. The dissent claimed “section 1109 is not an ameliorative statute. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 29; see also Cal.
E2021-01085-COA-R3-CV, 2022 WL 3589838 (Tenn. 23, 2022), several insurance companies filed suit against the City of Sevierville, Sevier County Electric System (SCES), and Wolf Tree, who was SCES’s vegetation management contractor (the cases filed by the insurance companies were consolidated). Sevier County Electric System , No.
April 1, 2022), plaintiff filed this negligence suit against defendant after the two were involved in a car accident. In this case, the first requirement was met when defendant agreed to pay $30,000 toward the judgment, as the Courtruled that this action “manifested an intent to treat the judgment as valid[.]”. In Higgins v.
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