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 Court heard oral arguments Monday over a challenge to Louisiana’s recently redrawn voting map and its two Black-majority districts. “Louisiana would rather not be here,” state attorney J. .” “Louisiana would rather not be here,” state attorney J.
The Supreme Court today finds a 2018 statute did not violate the California Constitution in eliminating the possibility of transfer to adult criminal court of almost all prosecutions for crimes committed by 14- and 15-year-olds. Coverage of the decision: Bob Egelko in the San Francisco Chronicle.
In 1993, William Neilly was sentenced in Michigan state court to life without the possibility of parole for a homicide he committed as a juvenile. Because of intervening Supreme Courtdecisions prohibiting the imposition of no-parole life sentences for juvenile offenders, he was resentenced to a lesser sentence.
The INA permits detention beyond the 90-day removal period for certain inadmissible noncitizens or those “determined by the Attorney General to be a risk to the community or unlikely to comply with the order of removal.” The Supreme Court previously held that the post-removal statute contains an implicit time limit.
Under AEPDA, habeas relief is only available to a prisoner whose claims were adjudicated on the merits in state court if the prisoner can show that the last reasoned state courtdecision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Many of the justices seemed to agree. California.
Supreme Court'sdecision in Corner Post v. Federal Reserve Board effectively gives new entities their own personal statute of limitations to challenge rules and regulations, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence may portend the court's view that those entities do not need to be directly regulated, say attorneys at Snell & Wilmer.
The Supreme CourtDecision in Citizens United v. Because the station cannot censor the candidate ad (except in the exceptionally rare situation where the airing of the ad might violate a Federal felony statute), the broadcaster has no liability for the contents of the ad. How much investigation is necessary?
Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit eventually affirmed the district court’s denial of the legislators’ attempt on the ground that the state attorney general was adequately defending the law. Federal law curtails the extent to which a federal court can consider arguments that a prisoner has not presented in state court.
After a few slow weeks on the relist front, the Supreme Court came roaring back this week with four newly relisted petitions that, if granted, will likely be added to the March 2023 argument calendar. District courts have discretion to impose either consecutive or concurrent sentences unless a statute mandates otherwise.
Cortada is a longtime Floridian who received his law degree from the University of Miami and is now a professor at the University of Miami Department of Art and Art History; his work combines his legal training with his artistic vision of how each Supreme Courtdecision shaped the nation.
On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit has reversed–holding that the Eddings letter constituted a “commercial offer for sale of the claimed design” and therefore created a bar to patentability under the statute. The “on sale” bar is triggered both by pre-filing sales and pre-filing offers-to-sell.
Qualcomm , a case focusing on appellate standing following an IPR final written decision favoring the patentee. The statute indicates that any party to an IPR final-written-decision has a right to appeal. Rather, an appellant must show concrete injury caused by the PTAB decision and redressability of that injury.
A private attorney tasked with leading the investigation concluded that Gonzalez had likely violated a Texas anti-tampering statute that, among other things, prohibits a person from intentionally “remov[ing]. 1983 against Trevino along with the police chief and the private attorney in their individual capacities.
It is possible that these interpretations of the new Act will change with new legislation or courtdecisions, so never assume what you read one day will be interpreted the same way the next day. Drain - Phoenix Arizona Bankruptcy Attorney. Below are brief descriptions of each of these amendments.
For example, a law firm failed to properly track the statute of limitations for a client’s discrimination claim. Frequent Legislative Changes The employment law landscape is constantly evolving, with new legislation and courtdecisions shaping the way cases are handled. For instance, Stowell & Friedman, Ltd.,
Instead, the majority concluded that, even under a federal standard of review that is highly deferential to state courtdecisions, the Supreme Court had “unreasonably applied” law about ineffective assistance of counsel and “could not reasonably have found that counsel’s failures were non-prejudicial.”
The Nevada Supreme Court upheld a 2021 state ban on ghost guns Thursday, overturning a lower-courtdecision that declared the law unconstitutional for being vague. Stiglich authored the opinion of the court. The Biden administration appealed this decision to the US Supreme Court. Justice Lidia S.
The purpose of this write up is to briefly highlight the confusion on the concept of jurisdiction in Nigerian conflict of laws through the lens of a very recently reported case (reported last week) of Attorney General of Yobe State v Maska & Ano r. (“ Maska” ). [2]. 3] Attorney General of Yobe State v Maska & Ano (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt.
” The article’s author is Frank Menetrez , who now is a justice on the court that decided Leon , although he did not sit on the case. .” ” The article’s author is Frank Menetrez , who now is a justice on the court that decided Leon , although he did not sit on the case.
Unfortunately, the PTA statute is not a model of clarity and has been the subject of numerous court battles over various quirky elements. The provision at issue in Sawstop has to do with PTA added for PTAB appeals and district court challenges. Judge Linn wrote the decision here joined by Judges Newman and Chen.
” In dismissing the fair housing claims, the superior court had relied on the opinion in AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. ” The dissenter said she was “confounded by [the superior court’s] failure to try more [felony trials for in-custody defendants] after fully reopening in June 2021.” Relying on a 2015 U.S.
In particular, if you look at the estoppel statute, it appears to apply only to claims that were part of the inter partes review. The court identifies this case as a unique situation resulting from an intervening Supreme Courtdecision. Decision by: Stoll. ” But Ingenio argues that the error was harmless.
Judge Markey also wrote a dissent that foreshadowed the eventual Supreme Courtdecision. After losing before the CCPA, the government then petitioned for Supreme Court review in the name of Marshall Dann, who was President Nixon’s Commissioner of Patents. Rather, the court found the claims obvious. John Deere Co. ,
FDA , the Court of Appeals ruled that FDA cannot regulate a medical product – in this case, the radiographic contrast agent barium sulfate – as a drug when the product meets the definition of a device. The decision has wide-ranging implications for FDA’s assertion of discretion in classifying and regulating medical products.
’ This Case is highly significant, because it extensively addresses the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Kenya and the principles to be considered by the Kenyan Courts. That procedure was not immediately apparent.
Several of them are sequels to earlier high courtdecisions. First Amendment The current court is very solicitous of First Amendment rights. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld that ruling in part, holding that as applied to “newsgathering” efforts by PETA and the other groups, the recording ban is unconstitutional.
At the Supreme Court’s conference yesterday, actions of note included: SVPA expert witness. The court granted a district attorney’s petition for review in Needham v. Superior Court. ” The court said, “we expect that [the Bar] will disclose the information. ” Restitution jurisdiction.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has begun 2023 with its first precedential patent decision in DexCom, Inc. In an opinion by Judge Stoll, the court affirmed a district courtdecision denying DexCom’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 2023-1795 (Fed. January 3, 2024).
.’ ” The appellate court also found inapplicable the Legislature’s intent statement in newly enacted Assembly Bill 600 that, in resentencing proceedings under section 1172.1 , which the bill amended, “courts have full discretion. ” The urging went unheeded, except for Justice Evans.
Legal research is the process of finding relevant laws, case summaries, and other information to back up your legal arguments and decision making. In addition to preparing for a filing or trial, an attorney may do legal research to accurately answer a client’s questions and provide guidance.
Circuit also rejected EPA’s argument that the court did not have authority to review stays issued under Section 307(d)(7)(D) of the Clean Air Act. The Second Circuit said the Connecticut statutes authorizing the solicitations did not compel utilities to enter into contracts with specific bidders. 47641-0-II (Wash. June 20, 2017).
A three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday overruled a lower courtdecision that blocked a California law requiring individuals seeking to buy ammunition to undergo a background check, allowing the state to mandate background checks for ammunition buyers. ” Rhode v.
A Hawaii court held that the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act requires environmental review for commercial taking of aquarium fish and that Department of Land and Natural Resources issuance and renewal of licenses for commercial aquarium collection without environmental review was invalid and illegal. A20-1513 (Minn.
The opinion, authored by Idaho Attorney General (AG) Raúl Labrador, concerns § 18-622(2) of the Idaho Criminal Code. The statute in its plain language states, criminal penalties will apply to “every person who performs or attempts to perform an abortion.” The Idaho AG’s Office has not yet responded to the suit.
Texas District Court Judge Maria Cant ú Hexsel temporarily blocked SB 14 , which bans gender-affirming care for minors and restricts children already taking gender-affirming prescription drugs, from going into effect on Friday. The case is in the District Court of Travis County, Texas. The ACLU of Texas represents the plaintiffs.
The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on Wednesday affirmed a lower courtdecision to block enforcement of a Missouri law that would place tight restrictions on access to abortion. House Bill 126 , the “Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act,” includes a gestational age provision and a Down syndrome provision.
Hirshfeld has the legal power to fulfill the expanded job as required by the Supreme Court’s decision. Guest post by Nina Mendelson , Following one Supreme Courtdecision posing dangers for the integrity of all sorts of agency adjudication, the ongoing litigation in Arthrex v. — Dennis Crouch.
Hill , the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed a district court ruling that struck down two state statutes — one requiring sex offenders to obtain specialized identification cards (with the words “SEX OFFENDER” in all caps) and the other prohibiting alteration of such identification documents. In Viking River Cruises, Inc.
Between 1997 and 2016, Congress enacted eight additional sex offender-related statutes , all of which are designed to either enhance or improve the tracking of sex offenders of every stripe through registration. In 1987, the trial court “set aside” the rape conviction through a “judicial clemency” order.
Supreme Court the chance to disapprove the California Supreme Courtdecision in Adolph v. Supreme Court had misinterpreted California law about the viability of representative actions under the Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act when representatives’ individual claims are being arbitrated (see here ).
Coverage of federal fraud statutes Porat v. There are six newly relisted cases this week, so I’m going to be more summary than usual in describing them. This week’s relists are a real grab bag of issues. United States and Kousisis v. 26 and May 9 conferences; relisted after the May 16, May 23 and May 30 conferences) Jane Doe 1 v.
The 5th Circuit rejected the idea that clearly established federal law, as established by holdings of the Supreme Court, permitted a court to imply Gladys Mobley’s bias from the facts of the case. rescheduled before the Mar. 26 and May 9 conferences; relisted after the May 16 and May 23 conferences) Jane Doe 1 v. Kentucky ex rel.
Moving on to potential blockbusters that don’t explicitly call on the court to overrule precedent. Environmental Protection Agency , 21-454 , is a long-running Clean Water Act dispute that has already been the subject of one major Supreme Courtdecision. They invoke Rapanos v. Holcombe v. Florida , 21-53.
Anna Mary Coburn , former attorney for the US Government (USG) involving the Hague Children’s Conventions and a Regional Legal Advisor and Foreign Service Officer for USAID. Mr. Lortie explained that the recent US Supreme Courtdecision of Golan v. 11 (such as returning a child post-abduction).
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