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 statute, though, contains several exceptions to the discharge, generally describing debts that Congress regarded as so important or reflecting such objectionable behavior that it is inappropriate for the debtor to discharge them. For Barrett, the case begins and ends with the language of the statute.
Dissatisfied with the purchase, Buckley eventually obtained a judgment in a California state court based on the failure of the Bartenwerfers to disclose information about the house on the standard-form Transfer Disclosure Statement. The statute refers to the discharge of “any” debt obtained by “fraud.”
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.
The Supreme Court first addressed the problem squarely in its 1987 decision in California v. That decision distinguishes between types of gambling that a state prohibits outright and types of gambling that a state tolerates subject to regulation. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a decision in California Restaurant Association v. The court overturned a District Court ruling to invalidate a Berkeley, California, prohibition on natural gas infrastructure in newly-constructed buildings. O n Monday, April 17, 2023, the U.S.
Aereo finally lost a courtdecision. This is the first case that Aereo itself has lost, also winning a favorable decision from a District Court in Boston which essentially followed the Second Circuits reasoning (see our summary of the Boston decision here ).
As we have written before , Flo and Eddie brought suit against Sirius XM, arguing that the service needs to get permission to make public performances of these recordings and, by not doing so, it violated their California state law copyrights. . This decision, on a summary decision motion, may quite well be appealed.
Hastings was California’s first chief justice, from 1850 to 1852. The New York Times’s Thomas Fuller has also written about the possibility of renaming the law school because of this infamous chapter of Hastings’s past — “ He Unleashed a California Massacre. Should This School Be Named for Him?
Share Friday’s decision in Coinbase v. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in California that had rejected a party’s efforts to force a putative class action out of court and into arbitration. The case turns on a 1988 amendment to the Federal Arbitration Act, which added the current Section 16(a) to that statute.
” It’s the UCL four-year statute of limitations, not the one-year provision in the Insurance Code — and similar language in the insured’s policy — for a “suit or action on th[e] policy.” The court reverses the First District, Division Two, Court of Appeal’s 2-1 published opinion.
Share The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. Sineneng-Smith , the justices reversed a circuit-courtdecision that struck down a federal law criminalizing the act of “encourag[ing] or induc[ing]” noncitizens to enter or remain in the United States for financial gain.
When a Court of Appeal found untimely a motion to vacate a nine-year-old default judgment for improper service, it concluded that, although the applicable statute (Code of Civ. Well, case law doesn’t anymore, not after today’s Supreme Courtdecision in California Capital Insurance Company v.
There are state courts and federal courts, state statutes and federal statutes, state common law and federal common law. This feeling of pity is compounded when I imagine this same lawyer trying to advise her client as to whether a choice-of-court clause will be enforced by a court in the United States.
This case reached the Florida Supreme Court when it was certified by the United State Court of Appeals which was reviewing a District Courtdecision reaching the same conclusion as did the Florida Supreme Court – that there was no performance right under state law for pre-1972 sound recordings (see our summary of the District Courtdecision here ).
This interesting case comment has been kindly provided to the blog by Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar , LLM, PhD, KIMEP University The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found in favor of Spain as defendant in a property case spanning several decades.
In its 2022 Caltech decision, the Federal Circuit overturned its prior Shaw precedent and found that the estoppel broadly applies to all claims challenged in an IPR and all grounds “which reasonably could have been asserted” against the petitioned claims. California Inst. But, lets look at the statute. Iancu , 138 S.
” 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 court depublished the opinion of the Second District, Division Eight, in People v. Menetrez, a former Horvitz & Levy attorney, wrote the article before becoming a judge.
On Friday, the US District Court in the Southern District of NY found that there is a public performance right in pre-1972 sound recordings in that state, following two decisions from California finding a similar right under California law (though on different grounds).
Employment case grant-and-hold : The court granted-and-held in Joseph v. California Department of Corrections. which the court decided two weeks ago. In Lawson , the court held that, instead of a U.S. In State of California v. The lead case is Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.
The 4th Circuit noted a second problem–the statute provides discretionary authority (“the district court … may order …”), and here discretion was properly denied. The opinion conflicts with the Second Circuit’s decision in In re del Valle Ruiz , 939 F.3d 3d 520 (2d Cir.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, May 21 and 22, in San Francisco, the court will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as summarized by court staff or limited by the court itself ): Castellanos v. In March of this year, the court heard argument in another COVID insurance case, Another Planet Entertainment, LLC v.
” In dismissing the fair housing claims, the superior court had relied on the opinion in AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. ” In dismissing the fair housing claims, the superior court had relied on the opinion in AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Relying on a 2015 U.S.
Actions of note at yesterday’s Supreme Court conference included: Supreme Court might open Girardi’s State Bar disciplinary files. The court agreed to hear People ex rel. concerning California’s whistleblower statute. ” The court also granted review in Los Angeles Unified School District v. .”
Buckley sued in California state court and won, leaving the Bartenwerfers jointly responsible for more than $200,000 in damages. As Justice Barrett noted, when Congress next amended the Bankruptcy Code following the Court’sdecision in Strang, it deleted the phrase “of the bankrupt” from the discharge exception for fraud.
State Bar of California , the court accepted the Bar’s concession in an original writ proceeding the court agreed to hear (see here ). ” The court said, “we expect that [the Bar] will disclose the information. ” Restitution jurisdiction.
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.
In a decision released this week , the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a District Courtdecision (about which we wrote here ) that had found that a video service provided by Aereokiller was a “cable system” as defined by Section 111 of the Copyright Act.
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 Fourth Circuit also dismissed as moot an environmental group’s appeal of the district court’s denial of its motion to intervene. California Chamber of Commerce v. 16-2432 et al.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court judgment rejecting challenges to San Francisco regulations that dictated which taxi medallion holders could pick up passengers at San Francisco International Airport. 1:20-cv-00056 (D.D.C. Union of Concerned Scientists v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration , No.
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. HRB Tax Group, Inc. Louisiana v.
Supreme Court draft opinion in a pending, exceptionally high-profile case has me considering leaks from California’s high court. Neither involved the disclosure of a draft opinion’s full text, just the bottom line of an impending decision. As it turned out, the decision did not come as a surprise.
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. California. Pliler and Davis v.
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. The 9th Circuit placed Hansen’s case on hold while the Supreme Court considered its Sineneng-Smith ruling. Next up is Lora v.
The answer to that question turned on the relationship between a Supreme Courtdecision and a congressional statute. Additionally, the majority noted, the legal materials that a court may consult when addressing the two inquiries are distinct: AEDPA requires the court to focus on U.S. In Brecht v.
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. 21 and Feb.
The answer the court gave was a stern rebuke, vitiating the plenary control that lower-courtdecisions had granted the state for more than a quarter of a century. The most controversial provisions of that statute, addressed in Ysleta , are the provisions that govern the tribes’ subjection to Texas gambling regulations.
The California Supreme Court had unanimously affirmed the conviction and death sentence. In 2000, the court summarily denied a state habeas corpus petition that raised, among other things, the ineffective counsel argument. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th It appears that we have yet to learn the lesson of those cases.”
Half of all incarcerated people serving LWOP are located in one of five states included in the review: California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Report authors highlighted a recent Supreme Courtdecision in Canada. Florida has the highest count of incarcerated people serving life without parole sentences.
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.
.’ ” 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.
It’s time again (actually, past time) to look at how the California Supreme Court fared at the U.S. Supreme Court during the latter’s most recent term, which ended last month. Gregg and Seifu had been grant-and-holds in the California Supreme Court, which later dismissed review without opinions.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Thursday that a federal statute requiring people to be 21 to purchase handguns from Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) conflicts with previous Supreme Courtdecisions and the Second Amendment.
In 2019, the Wyoming federal court stayed these proceedings challenging the Waste Prevention Rule while a challenge to the Trump administration’s repeal of the rule was pending in the federal district court for the Northern District of California. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. California v.
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. In Kennedy 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