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
Carole Johnson (consolidated cases), the Court found that the conditions set by Novartis and United Therapeutics on covered entities did not violate the 340B statute, although more restrictive conditions could violate the law. District Court and won, prompting a government appeal to the D.C.
50-5-85’s inclusion of “other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel” makes the statute impermissibly vague. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on Feb. 12 ruled that an Arkansas anti-BDS law violates the First Amendment. O.C.G.A. § Recently, the U.S. Code Ann. §
Two pending petitions raise the question of the constitutionality of state statutes providing that corporations are deemed to have consented to “general” personal jurisdiction by virtue of having registered to do business in a state. Some older Supreme Courtdecisions support that theory of consent. Returning Relists.
State governments are already responding to the Dobbs decision with new regulations banning abortion or working to reinforce protections for people seeking abortions in their states across state lines. HB314 reinforced Alabama statute banning abortion that was never appealed after it was made unenforceable under Roe. South Dakota.
1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. The district court rejected eight grounds for removal, but the Fourth Circuit concluded its appellate jurisdiction was limited to determining whether the companies properly removed the case under the federal-officer removal statute. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore , No.
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed , holding that because a federal agency now has the final say over how the private horse-racing authority implements the federal statute, the amended law did not impermissibly delegate authority to a private entity. The states sought Supreme Court review , but it was denied.
This happened in five other cases making six of the 30 total 5-4 decisions between OT 2020 and OT 2023 or 20% of the time. Arkansas Teachers Retirement System making for one case in 2020, two in 2021, two in 2022, and one in 2023 showing no great increase over her time on the Court. The other cases were Bittner 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