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
However, this is not always the case, as a limited number of administrativelaw courts may allow paralegal client representation in special cases. Paralegals cannot appear in court on behalf of a client. This is a pretty simple rule to adhere to; paralegals are not recognized in most courts.
The FCC has already issued such an extension three times since the initial compliance deadline of May 26, 2015, as the NAB contends that there still is no workable technology that can perform the functions required by the rule (see our Broadcast Law Blog article here from the last extension 5 years ago).
While the decision has been appealed , a federal district court in Utah v. In the Utah v. Indeed, the rule is an appealing target for challengers seeking to limit government action and attempting to push legal boundaries in AdministrativeLaw and under the First Amendment. In contrast, the Fifth Circuit in Texas v.
BLM Dropped Appeal of Adverse Decision on Environmental Review for Utah Coal Mine Expansion. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the federal government’s unopposed motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal of a March 2021 District of Utah decision that found that the U.S. Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment v.
The work is not entirely glamorous, however: The court’s docket also includes a steady diet of lower-profile (although still important) administrative-law cases, including appeals of orders issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. After Biden nominated Merrick Garland, then a judge on the D.C.
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