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 majority opinion emphasizes the central role of deference in NEPA litigation, and undoubtedly seeks to change the mood of adjudication of NEPA claims. Now, the Seven County majority opinion is laden with sweeping generalizations and unsupported assertions about the negative effects of NEPA litigation. [2]
As required by a federal statute, Mexico seeks to show (among other things) that the defendant companies participated in the unlawful sale or marketing of firearms. Taamneh (2023). From Justice Kagan's unanimous (and, I think, correct) opinion today in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. 7903(5)(A)(iii). See Twitter v.
An Ontology of the In-Between [18th Ernst Rabel Lecture, 2022] [OPEN ACCESS], 433–464, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2023-0063 The conflict of laws can serve heuristically to underscore two established but radically opposing models of modernist legal ordering: multilateralism and statutism.
Share The Supreme Court on Monday morning added two additional hours of argument, in cases involving federal funding of health care services for Native Americans and the Armed Career Criminal Act, to its docket for the 2023-24 term. The justices granted review in two cases, Becerra v. And in Erlinger v. du Pont de Nemours v.
The Court then explained how the law protects the firearm industry from civil lawsuits blaming the industry for crimes and torts committed by third parties. But "PLCAA reflects Congress's view that the democratic process, not litigation, should set the terms of gun control."
Konan to determine whether the Federal Tort Claims Act provision exempting claims arising from the loss or miscarriage of letters or postal matter extends to claims that the Post Office deliberately refused to deliver mail to an address. The moratorium remained in effect until early 2023, with some protections continuing into 2024.
And that has implications for tort law, contract law, and property law, because it is less clear in many ways how basic legal principles such as negligence, foreseeability, force majeure, and reasonableness will apply to particular problems. In late 2023, LSEW committed “to being net zero by 2030” in its operations.
Given the power of Big Tech Companies, their enormous financial resources, cross-jurisdictional reach and their global impact on users’ privacy, there are two main litigation challenges for successfully bringing a privacy claim against Big Tech. 3] Secondly, the challenge is how to finance mass claims, involving millions of affected users.
The Nigerian landowners’ claim against Shell was thus barred by the limitation periods under applicable Nigerian law ( Jalla and another v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company and another [2023] UKSC 16 , on appeal from [2021] EWCA Civ 63 ). The case at hand is an appeal on a part of an earlier rulings.
Besides, Spanish courts had jurisdiction because Spain was the place of the domicile of the defendant and the claim was one of unjust enrichment – i.e. a claim in tort –, not one whose subject matter was the existence or scope of a right in rem over a real estate asset. Arguably, it was not necessary to do so.
No federal statutes explicitly preempt state Climate Superfund laws, and different U.S. Chevron , the Second Circuit held that the City of New York could not sue global fossil fuel producers under state tort law for damages caused by fossil fuel emissions outside of its borders. Moreover, the Second Circuit’s reasoning in New York v.
United States , involving the scope of a statute that gives judges discretion to reduce criminal sentences for extraordinary and compelling reasons. Government contractors defenses to torts The GEO Group, Inc. The Supreme Court is making good progress in sorting through the current relists. This week it disposed of four. In Hencely v.
Konan sued the USPS under the Federal Tort Claims Act, asserting claims under Texas law for nuisance, tortious interference, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It reasoned that loss and miscarriage cover intentional acts, as the statute only qualifies transmission with negligent. But the U.S.
The survey covers significant cases decided in 2023 on choice of law, party autonomy, extraterritoriality, international human rights, foreign sovereign immunity, adjudicative jurisdiction, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. 2023), which is also discussed in the survey. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
King sued them under the Federal Tort Claims Act and under Bivens v. The district court then invoked nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel to preclude du Pont from disputing key issues involving duty, breach, and foreseeability in other cases in the multidistrict litigation. du Pont de Nemours & Co. 26 conference) King v.
She asserted claims in tort and under the Australian Consumer Law ( ACL ) in schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) ( CCA ) against companies behind the ship: Carnival plc and its subsidiary, Princess Cruise Lines Ltd (together, Princess ). The decision is significant not just for the litigants.
Statute has left little of the common law untouched. US customers also waived their rights to litigate in representative proceedings against Carnival (the ‘class action waiver’) ( PJ, [27] ). First, a statute may impose a choice of law rule directing the application of the lex fori where a connecting factor is established.
Below is an expanded version of my column in the New York Post on the return of Halloween and joy of little litigators in anticipation of the return of the festival of Samhain. Here is the column: With the arrival of Halloween, little children and litigators will again celebrate their favorite holiday. Six Flags St. follow the rules.”She
Here is my annual list of Halloween torts and crimes. Halloween has everything for a torts-filled holiday: battery, trespass, defamation, nuisance, product liability and more. However, my students and I often discuss the remarkably wide range of torts that comes with All Hallow’s Eve. In another June 2023 decision in Munoz v.
This restrictive turn mirrors the trajectory of human rights litigation under the Alien TortStatute (ATS). [22] 10] Toren v Federal Republic of Germany 2023 WL 7103263 (United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit) (unreported). [11] 22] Starting with the Second Circuits decision in Filrtiga v.
When California brought the first of these suits in 2023, Gov. Gavin Newsom said that it should be big polluters, rather than Californians, who pay for damages from climate change-related events such as [w]ildfires wiping out entire communities. Relisted after the Jan. 10 and Jan. 17 conferences.) Relisted after the Jan.
Yes, the statute really does have a full cite to the opinion in it. For insured claims, the insurer would have to seek the same information in litigation on a case-by-case basis. CVSG: 8/30/2023 (relisted after the Oct. CVSG: 8/30/2023 (relisted after the Oct. Nelson ,…517 U.S. Chevron deference? 6 conference) Cantero v.
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. s consumer protection statute. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Koati. and non-U.S.
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