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
Share The Supreme Court will kick off its November argument session with the highest-profile cases of that session: challenges to the consideration of race in the admissions process at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The justices also released a revised calendar for the October argument session. The court moved Mallory v.
The Supreme Court today announced it will hear nine cases on its late-May calendar. May is the only month with two argument calendars.) That’s as many arguments as on next week’s large early-May calendar , and it puts the court on pace to issue well over 50 opinions this term. See here and here.))
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. 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.
Supreme Court held that the penalty for the nonwillful failure to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) is $10,000 per report rather than per account. Bittner challenged that penalty in court, arguing that the BSA authorizes a maximum penalty for nonwillful violations of $10,000 per report, not $10,000 per account.
Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinions in Castellanos v. The court granted review in June 2023. The court granted review in August 2022. Castellanos and Quach will be the third and fourth decisions in the nine cases argued on the late -May calendar. State of California and Quach v.
We’ve been following the Servotronics case, in which the Supreme Court was to consider whether a party to a private international arbitration may use 28 U.S.C. I had my doubts about whether the Supreme Court would reach the merits of the issue do to a mootness problem. 1782 to take evidence in the United States.
This will be a big one: tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will file its opinion in In re Humphrey. Humphrey will be the second opinion in a case argued on the January calendar. 2) In setting the amount of monetary bail, may a trial court consider public and victim safety? Must it do so?
Coordinating with these various parties can be a logistical nightmare, particularly when trying to schedule meetings, depositions, or court appearances. Frequent Legislative Changes The employment law landscape is constantly evolving, with new legislation and courtdecisions shaping the way cases are handled.
Summary Affirmances Figure 2 Figure 2 shows the number of opinions versus Rule 36 summary affirmances arising from the District Courts and PTO. In terms of absolute numbers, the court issued the fewest Rule 36 summary affirmances in appeals arising from these origins in several years. But it is a drop from 2014-2020.
Mark your calendars now. This dinner—at the Waldorf Astoria in DC—will commemorate FDLI’s role during key eras in food and drug law and will have fun surprises as well!”
FCC , which rejected the requirement that broadcast licensees independently check two federal databases to verify whether an airtime lessee is a “foreign governmental entity” (see our Broadcast Law Blog article on the Court’sdecision here ).
Primary Sources: Primary legal sources are formal documents issued by a state or federal government that establish law such as: Courtdecisions Case law Statutes Regulations Constitutions Secondary Sources : Secondary sources provide summaries of legal matters and courtdecisions. What is “good” law?
Best Price Stacking We previously blogged about the 4 th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in United States Ex Rel. Allergan Sales , which affirmed a lower courtdecision in a Federal False Claims case involving best price stacking. Sheldon, v. 1396r-8(b)(3)(C)(i).
With so many issues on the table, we’ll divide the issues into two parts – talking about FCC issues today, and issues from Capitol Hill and elsewhere in the maze of government agencies and courts who deal with broadcast issues. In addition, watch these pages for our calendar of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters in the next few days.
We’ll start today with issues likely to be considered by the FCC, and we’ll write later about issues that may arise on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in the maze of government agencies and courts who deal with broadcast issues. In addition, watch these pages for our calendar of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters in the next few days.
In addition, watch these pages for our calendar of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters in the next few days. Indecency: After the Supreme Courtdecision in June 2012, upholding the FCC’s right to regulate indecency but questioning the current procedure for doing so, the FCC’s regulation of indecency has been up in the air.
Last week, we published a calendar of regulatory deadlines for broadcasters. Still, we would expect that some decision on changes to the ownership rules should be expected at some point this year – probably early in the year.
And, of course, there is the political calendar. Opponents of LDT regulation received a boost with last year’s Supreme Courtdecision overturning an agency action based on the “major questions” doctrine, West Virginia v. All of this will take time.
We’ll start today with issues likely to be considered by the FCC, and we’ll write later about issues that may arise on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in the maze of government agencies and courts who deal with media issues. These issues are considered in Congress and in the Courts, and we will discuss them in a separate article.
Fourth Circuit Declined to Stay Remand Order in Baltimore’s Climate Case Against Fossil Fuel Companies; Companies Sought Stay from Supreme Court. Supreme Court. On October 2, the district court granted the companies’ motion to temporarily extend its stay of the remand order until the Supreme Court resolves the application.
The justices released the calendar for their March argument session on Monday, just two business day after they turned down the Trump administrations request to pause the briefing in three cases in which it intends to take another look at the regulations, agency determinations, or actions at the center of the disputes. Oklahoma v.
Chutkan, who virtually turned her court into a rocket docket to try Trump. After the mandate in the case was returned to her, Judge Chutkan immediately resumed her high-speed scheduling to look at the pre-trial issues after the Court reversed her earlier rulings on the basis of presidential immunity. United States. United States.
Federal Court Denied Oakland and San Francisco Motions to Return Climate Change Nuisance Cases to State Court; Found Federal Common Law of Nuisance Could Apply, Despite AEP v. The court dispensed with the cities’ three primary arguments for remanding the cases. HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE CLIMATE CASE CHART SINCE UPDATE # 107.
Below is a slightly expanded version of my column on Fox.com on the attacks of the Court for granting review of the immunity challenge brought by former president Donald Trump. The claims of “slow walking” the appeal ignore the history and culture of the Court. There is, of course, another possible explanation.
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