Attorney Court Decisions Statute 
JURIST
MARCH 26, 2025
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.
At the Lectern
FEBRUARY 25, 2021
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
JANUARY 10, 2022
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.
Law 360
JULY 5, 2024
Supreme Court's decision 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.
Broadcast Law Blog
JANUARY 22, 2010
The Supreme Court Decision 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?
Patently O
FEBRUARY 10, 2022
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.
Patently O
FEBRUARY 24, 2022
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.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
104 
Let's personalize your content